Managing Food Waste Through Gamification and Serious Games: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Household food waste poses significant environmental, social, and financial challenges. This systematic literature review examines the role of games and gamification in mitigating food waste, addressing four key research questions: how these interventions are applied, their impact on attitudes and behaviors, the specific mechanisms employed, and their measured outcomes. The analysis identifies a range of strategies, including mobile applications, serious games, educational platforms, and interactive installations. Theoretical frameworks such as the Theory of Planned Behavior, emotional engagement, systems thinking, and cognitive load theory underpin these interventions. Findings suggest that gamification can enhance awareness, knowledge, and behavioral change, with some interventions demonstrating measurable reductions in food waste. However, limitations such as the lack of long-term engagement data, varying effectiveness across socio-economic contexts, and inconsistencies in measurement frameworks remain challenges. Notable interventions—including the MySusCof and Exspiro apps and serious games like FoodFighters and PadovaGoGreen—show promising results but require further validation in diverse settings. This review highlights both the potential and limitations of gamified strategies, emphasizing the need for standardized measurement approaches and longitudinal studies to assess their sustained impact on food waste reduction.

1. Introduction

1.1. Household Food Waste Challenges

Household food waste is a multifaceted issue with significant environmental, social, and financial implications [1,2,3,4,5,6]. The issue of food waste has been linked with problems such as climate change, biodiversity loss, water depletion, soil degradation, and hunger [7]. It is influenced by various factors, including shopping habits, eating preferences, and food-related behaviors [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].

Different approaches have been taken to tackle this problem, such as economic incentives, regulations, and awareness campaigns [9]. However, the effectiveness of these strategies can be influenced by individual and family-level variables, such as socioeconomic status, education, and culinary habits [5]. Additionally, addressing food waste requires improving postharvest handling and storage practices. Shewfelt and Prussia (2022) emphasize that inefficiencies in postharvest storage, temperature control, and handling protocols significantly contribute to food losses, particularly in the early stages of the supply chain. They argue that better logistics and storage conditions could prevent substantial amounts of food from being discarded before reaching consumers [10]. These systemic inefficiencies highlight the need for interventions that not only target consumer behavior but also consider the broader logistical and structural factors contributing to food waste.

Recognizing the need for a standardized approach to food waste prevention, the European Union (EU) has established a framework for measuring and addressing food waste levels. The EU Waste Framework Directive mandates Member States to develop prevention programs, promote food donation, and prioritize human consumption over alternative uses such as animal feed or industrial processing [11].

Standardizing food waste accounting remains a challenge due to inconsistencies in measurement methodologies. The European Commission: Joint Research Centre (2017) outlines the difficulties in harmonizing food waste tracking, citing variations in estimation methods and sector-specific definitions [12]. Similar mass flow analyses have been used to quantify food waste across the European Union, providing insights into inefficiencies in the food supply chain [13].

1.2. Food Waste Hierarchies: Complementary Approaches

Food waste occurs at multiple stages of the food supply chain, and interventions can be designed based on these stages. Two primary hierarchies have been used in research and policy discussions: the three-stage model proposed by Bagherzadeh et al. (2014) [14] and Lipinski et al. (2013) [15], and the food use hierarchy refined by Sanchez Lopez et al. (2020) [16] and the European Commission Joint Research Centre (2024) [11]. These classifications provide distinct yet complementary perspectives on food waste reduction.

1.2.1. Three-Stage Model of Food Waste

This model categorizes food waste based on when it occurs along the food supply chain, identifying three key stages:

Before Purchase (Production and Processing)

Food losses at this stage occur during agricultural production, post-harvest handling, storage, and processing. Common causes include improper harvesting techniques, poor storage conditions, and processing inefficiencies. However, quantifying these losses remains difficult, as food waste tracking at the production level is often inconsistent and fragmented across supply chains [17]. Variability in agricultural yields, logistical inefficiencies, and market fluctuations further complicate assessments, making it challenging to establish precise intervention strategies.

After Purchase (Retail and Consumption)

Food waste at this stage occurs at the retail and consumer levels. In retail settings, overstocking, improper handling, and spoilage contribute to losses. At the household level, waste is often driven by over-purchasing, improper storage, and failing to consume food before its expiration date.

Disposal and Composting

At this stage, food waste is discarded, though interventions can divert it from landfills through composting, anaerobic digestion, or waste-to-energy initiatives. Despite policy efforts to increase waste valorization, the lack of uniform waste classification and tracking makes it difficult to assess the real impact of disposal strategies [17]. The goal of strategies at this stage is to manage waste more sustainably.

1.2.2. Food Use Hierarchy

While the three-stage model focuses on when food waste occurs, the food use hierarchy, as seen in Figure 1, illustrates this hierarchy and provides a structured prioritization of interventions to minimize waste [11]. This approach aligns with the EU Waste Framework Directive and emphasizes food waste prevention, redistribution, and valorization before resorting to disposal.

Prevention and Redistribution Strategies

The most effective interventions prevent food from becoming waste in the first place. Strategies include improving supply chain efficiency, consumer education, and redistributing surplus food for human consumption [11]. Policies such as the EU Waste Framework Directive promote food donation programs, economic incentives, and behavior change initiatives.

Food Recovery and Valorization

If food cannot be consumed, it should be repurposed before disposal. Potential uses include animal feed, industrial processing, or bioconversion into products such as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics [18]. These strategies align with circular economy principles, maximizing resource efficiency.

Waste Treatment and Disposal

The final tier of the hierarchy focuses on managing unavoidable food waste through composting, biogas production, or incineration. These methods reduce landfill dependency, mitigating environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions.

1.3. Distinctions Between Game-Based Learning, Serious Games, and Gamification

Game-based learning, serious games, and gamification are three related but distinct approaches that integrate game elements into educational and behavioral interventions. Understanding their differences is crucial for accurately categorizing game-driven strategies for food waste reduction.

Game-based learning refers to the use of games as learning tools, where structured game environments facilitate skill acquisition and knowledge retention [19]. It encompasses digital and non-digital games designed primarily for educational purposes, allowing learners to engage with content interactively.

Serious games are full-fledged games developed for purposes beyond entertainment, such as education, health, or social awareness [20]. Unlike general game-based learning, serious games embed structured learning objectives into their design, often requiring players to apply critical thinking and problem-solving within realistic scenarios. Despite their educational intent, serious games retain game mechanics and immersive experiences similar to commercial video games.

Gamification, in contrast, refers to the application of game-like elements (e.g., points, badges, leaderboards) in non-game contexts to enhance motivation and engagement [21,22]. Unlike serious games, gamification does not necessarily involve fully developed games but instead borrows specific mechanics to encourage desired behaviors.

Although these categories are theoretically distinct, the literature often demonstrates overlapping applications and inconsistent terminology [22,23]. To address this, researchers emphasize the need for clearer conceptual boundaries and structured reporting guidelines for game-based interventions [22]. Establishing these distinctions is critical to ensuring effective study design and intervention evaluation in educational and behavioral contexts.

At the same time, studies frequently blur the boundaries between these categories, making strict classification challenging. Some interventions incorporate elements of both gamification and serious games. For instance, a study may introduce a structured game experience (serious game) while also using points and leaderboards (gamification) to enhance engagement. Similarly, game-based learning strategies may overlap with serious games when designed for educational purposes with embedded learning objectives. Given these complexities, our categorization follows the dominant approach identified in each study, acknowledging that some interventions may fit into multiple categories. This methodological choice introduces a limitation, as it may oversimplify hybrid approaches, but it ensures consistency in data synthesis and analysis.

1.4. Gamification for Behavior Change

The concept of gamification, which involves incorporating game design elements in non-game contexts, has been recognized for its potential to promote positive behavior changes. Bassanelli et al. (2022) conducted a scientometric review to analyze the trends and influential contributions in the field of gamification for behavior change. Their study highlighted the increasing interest in using gamification to support various positive behaviors, including those related to health, sustainability, and civic engagement [24]. The review identified key theoretical frameworks, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior and Self-Determination Theory, which underpin the design and implementation of gamified interventions. These frameworks help in understanding how game elements can enhance user motivation and engagement to achieve desired behavioral outcomes.

Similarly, Hammady and Arnab (2022) performed a systematic review focusing on serious gaming for behavior change. They emphasized the role of specific game design mechanics and features that effectively influence behavior during and after gameplay. The study identified common game elements that promote behavior change, such as challenges, rewards, and social interactions. These elements are critical in designing games that not only engage users but also facilitate long-term behavioral changes [25].

Additionally, empirical evidence supports the efficacy of gamified interventions. A meta-analysis conducted by Kim and Castelli (2021) demonstrates that gamification has a moderate but statistically significant impact on behavioral outcomes in educational settings, with notable effects on engagement and motivation [26]. These findings indicate that gamification can serve as a powerful tool to modify behaviors, making it a relevant strategy for addressing food waste behaviors.

The integration of gamification into food waste interventions aligns with existing policy initiatives by providing an interactive mechanism to reinforce sustainable behaviors. Through reward-based engagement and behavior tracking, gamification can serve as a bridge between regulatory measures and individual-level food waste reduction practices, making food waste monitoring more intuitive and impactful.

1.5. Objectives

This literature review aims to consolidate research findings on games and gamification mechanisms targeted at reducing food waste. By synthesizing insights from various studies, it seeks to understand the mechanisms through which these interventions influence behaviors and attitudes towards food waste. Specifically, the review addresses the following questions:

• Research Question 1: How are games and gamification mechanisms being used to address food waste?
• Research Question 2: How do these interventions impact the attitudes and behavioral intentions of participants concerning food waste?
• Research Question 3: What specific interventions do games and gamification mechanisms employ to reduce food waste?
• Research Question 4: What are the measured outcomes of using games and gamification in reducing food waste?

2. Methodology

A systematic review has been conducted to study and analyze what has been investigated in using games and gamification strategies to reduce food waste and improve food management practices. The research was conducted across four digital libraries: ACM, IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, and Scopus, using relevant keyword searches.

In this search, 251 results were found. These results were exported in BibTeX format and processed using JabRef v5.11 [27], an open-source bibliography reference manager. A 7-year filter (2017–2024) limit was set for the queries. The results obtained from each digital library contain papers published in different periods, as shown in the last column of

Table 1. Search queries used for different digital libraries.

Digital Library	Search Query
ScienceDirect	(“games” OR “serious games” OR “gamification”) AND (“food waste” OR “food loss” OR “household food waste”)
ACM, IEEE Xplore, Scopus	(“games” OR “game” OR “serious games” OR “educational games” OR “gamification”) AND (“food waste” OR “household food waste” OR “food loss” OR “food wastage” OR “food disposal” OR “food scraps” OR “food surplus” OR “food management”)

. We created a detailed search query to find relevant studies on using games and gamification to reduce food waste. We included various terms and synonyms to cover all possible relevant studies.

2.1. Search Query

To perform a comprehensive literature review on the use of games and gamification strategies in reducing food waste, we developed detailed search queries. These queries included various synonyms and related terms to ensure comprehensive coverage of the topic. Due to the different capabilities and limitations of digital libraries regarding the number of Boolean operators allowed, we tailored our queries accordingly.

Different digital libraries allow different numbers of Boolean operators in a query. ScienceDirect, for example, limits queries to a maximum of 8 Boolean operators. Because of this, we adjusted our search query to fit these limitations.

By adapting the search queries to fit the specific constraints of each digital library, we ensured a comprehensive and efficient literature review process. The results of the search and their distribution across different digital libraries are summarized in

Table 2. Summary of critical appraisal of included studies.

Digital Library	Results	Years
ACM	151	2017–2024
IEEE Xplore	11	2017–2024
ScienceDirect	5	2017–2024
Scopus	84	2017–2024
TOTAL	251

.

To conduct the review, we followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [28] guidelines, which provide an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Figure 2).

The study selection process involved several stages, as depicted in Figure 2 [29]. Duplicates were removed, and studies were screened for relevance based on their titles and abstracts according to the inclusion criteria. Full-text articles were then assessed for eligibility. The screening process was conducted using ASReview v1.6.3, an open-source tool that employs active learning and multiple machine learning models to assist researchers in making inclusion and exclusion judgments, enhancing the accuracy of the screening process [30].

From the 251 resulting articles, 41 duplicates were removed. The other 175 studies were excluded because they were not related to games, gamification, serious games, or food waste.

The remaining 35 articles were further scrutinized, and four were eliminated because they were either not available or not relevant. Finally, 29 articles were included in the systematic literature review and considered for quantitative analysis.

2.2. Research Variables and Measurement Criteria

The research variables in this systematic review were identified based on recurring themes in the analyzed studies. Specifically, we categorized variables into three key dimensions: (1) Intervention Type (e.g., gamification, serious games, mobile applications, educational platforms); (2) Behavioral Theories Applied (e.g., Theory of Planned Behavior, Persuasive System Design, Emotional Engagement); and (3) Measured Outcomes (e.g., awareness improvement, reduction in food waste, long-term behavioral change). These variables were extracted from each study based on explicit mentions of behavioral frameworks and intervention effectiveness. Following the approach of [31,32], which structured food waste research according to intervention mechanisms and behavioral triggers, we adopted a structured classification to ensure consistency. The categorization allows for a comparative evaluation of findings, aligning with established systematic review methodologies in food waste research.

2.3. Justification for Systematic Review Methodology

A systematic review approach was chosen to comprehensively analyze existing research on food waste reduction through gamification and behavioral interventions. This method ensures a structured synthesis of diverse findings, allowing for the identification of trends, gaps, and theoretical contributions across multiple studies. The use of systematic reviews in food waste research has been previously validated by studies such as [31], which explored interventions in educational institutions, and [32], which analyzed behavioral levers for food waste prevention. Unlike narrative reviews, systematic reviews provide a replicable and transparent framework that reduces bias in data interpretation. Moreover, given the interdisciplinary nature of food waste studies—spanning behavioral sciences, digital interventions, and sustainability—the systematic approach allows us to integrate insights from multiple domains. This methodology is particularly suitable for examining the effectiveness of gamification elements, as it enables cross-study comparisons of intervention strategies and behavioral impacts.

2.4. Methodological Criteria

The categorization of interventions into Gamification, Game, and Serious Games can be ambiguous, as these classifications often overlap. To provide clarity and ensure consistency, the following criteria were employed:

2.4.1. Serious Games

An intervention was classified as a Serious Game if it was specifically developed with the primary purpose of addressing food waste or related themes. These games are designed with explicit educational or behavioral objectives centered on food waste management.

2.4.2. Games

The classification of Games was applied to interventions utilizing existing games, card games, or other analog games. These interventions did not necessarily originate with the intention of addressing food waste but were repurposed or adapted to achieve this goal.

2.4.3. Gamification

Interventions were classified as Gamification when the primary focus was on the gamification system itself. This includes applications (web, mobile, desktop) that incorporate gamification elements, even if they resemble games. Additionally, analog gamification methods, such as stamp collection systems, were also included under this category.

2.4.4. Handling Overlaps in Categorization

Since many studies incorporated elements from multiple categories, we classified each intervention based on its dominant approach. Prior research has noted that gamification, serious games, and game-based learning frequently overlap, making strict classification challenging [22,23].

If a study implemented a fully structured game environment with embedded learning objectives, it was categorized as a Serious Game, even if it also used gamification elements like points or leaderboards [20]. Conversely, studies that primarily added game mechanics (e.g., rewards, scoring systems) to an existing system without a structured game experience were classified as Gamification [21].

In cases where interventions had features from both categories, priority was given to the core mechanics and learning approach over this study’s self-reported classification. This aligns with the argument that classification should consider functionality and engagement strategies rather than just terminology [22]. While this categorization provides structure, it introduces the limitation that hybrid interventions may not fit neatly into a single category, as discussed in the Limitations section.

3. Results

3.1. Study Distribution and Research Activity

This section presents the findings from the reviewed studies. Figure 3 shows the distribution of studies per year, highlighting the increasing research interest in games, serious games, and gamification for food waste management from 2017 to 2024.

The peak in 2023, with nine studies, followed by three additional studies in early 2024, indicates a growing academic interest in leveraging games and gamification for food waste interventions. This upward trend suggests increased recognition of interactive solutions in sustainability efforts.

3.2. Theoretical Frameworks in Use

Understanding the theoretical underpinnings of these interventions is crucial for assessing their effectiveness.

Table 3. Behavioral approaches (sorted chronologically by publication year).

Author (Year)	Behavioral Approach
Altarriba et al. (2017) [33]	Social influence, behavioral change
Fadhil (2017) [34]	Hexad model of gamification, self-determination theory (SDT)
Joyner et al. (2017) [35]	Instrumental learning, behavior change through incentives and narrative engagement
Sato et al. (2018) [36]	Game-based learning, experiential learning
Anderson and Reid (2019) [37]	Theory of Planned Behavior, social influence, loss aversion
Dolnicar et al. (2020) [38]	Utility theory, social norms
Gaggi et al. (2020) [39]	Educational engagement through gamification, behavioral change via interactive learning
Jacobsen et al. (2020) [40]	Reflection and behavioral change through interaction with automated sorting technology
Soma et al. (2020) [41]	Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), awareness and behavior change through educational engagement
Sinclair et al. (2021) [42]	Emotional engagement, reflective learning through provocative design
He et al. (2021) [43]	Fogg Behavior Model (FBM) encompassing motivation, ability, and trigger mechanisms
Nkwo et al. (2021) [44]	Persuasive system design (PSD) framework
Haas et al. (2022) [45]	Hedonic-utilitarian hybrid approach, gamification theory, behavior change theory
Seiler et al. (2022) [46]	Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), focusing on perceived ease of use (PEOU), perceived usefulness (PU), and intention to use (ITU)
Sato and Mizuyama (2022) [47]	Experiential learning, awareness-raising through interactive simulations
Tian and Zheng (2022) [48]	Normative illusion, evolutionary game theory
Tuah et al. (2022) [49]	User engagement through gamification, agile UX methodology
Miller et al. (2023) [50]	Food systems approach, experiential learning, game-based learning
Jespersen et al. (2023) [51]	Memory retention, behavior change through regular interaction and emotional attachment
Jung (2023) [52]	Behavior change through emotional engagement
Löchtefeld et al. (2023) [53]	Learning through play, memory retention, behavior change via gamified education
Perera et al. (2023) [54]	Practice-oriented view, social norms, and behavioral change theories
Pajpach et al. (2023) [55]	Persuasive technology, behavior change through feedback and reminders
Rodrigues et al. (2023) [56]	Game-based learning strategy
Vasconcelos et al. (2023) [57]	Gamification for behavior change, educational engagement
Yu et al. (2023) [58]	Persuasive technology, self-tracking, gamification for behavior change
Elnakib et al. (2024) [59]	Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) encompassing knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control
Hamada et al. (2024) [60]	Cognitive load associated with food
Santa Cruz et al. (2024) [61]	Behavioral change through gamification and educational engagement

presents the behavioral models and theories used in the reviewed studies.

The most commonly applied framework was the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which appeared in multiple studies. Other notable approaches included emotional engagement theory, social influence models, and cognitive load theory.

Early frameworks focused on social influence (e.g., Altarriba et al., 2017 [33]), while later studies increasingly adopted structured models like TPB and FBM, reflecting a shift toward evidence-based behavioral strategies.

3.3. Types of Interventions Used

Table 4. Methods in games or gamification (sorted chronologically by publication year) X indicates that the study falls under this category.

Author (Year)	Game	Serious Games	Gamification
Altarriba et al. (2017) [33]			X
Fadhil (2017) [34]			X
Joyner et al. (2017) [35]	X
Sato et al. (2018) [36]	X
Anderson and Reid (2019) [37]			X
Dolnicar et al. (2020) [38]			X
Gaggi et al. (2020) [39]			X
Jacobsen et al. (2020) [40]			X
Soma et al. (2020) [41]			X
Sinclair et al. (2021) [42]		X
He et al. (2021) [43]			X
Miller et al. (2021) [50]	X
Nkwo et al. (2021) [44]			X
Haas et al. (2022) [45]			X
Seiler et al. (2022) [46]		X
Sato and Mizuyama (2022) [47]		X
Tian and Zheng (2022) [48]	X
Tuah et al. (2022) [49]			X
Miller et al. (2023) [50]	X
Jespersen et al. (2023) [51]		X
Jung (2023) [52]			X
Löchtefeld et al. (2023) [53]		X
Perera et al. (2023) [54]			X
Pajpach et al. (2023) [55]			X
Rodrigues et al. (2023) [56]	X
Vasconcelos et al. (2023) [57]		X
Yu et al. (2023) [58]			X
Elnakib et al. (2024) [59]	X
Hamada et al. (2024) [60]			X
Santa Cruz et al. (2024) [61]			X

categorizes the studies based on their approach—game, serious games, or gamification.

The classification highlights that gamification (16 studies) was the most commonly employed strategy, followed by games and serious games (7 studies each). This suggests a preference for integrating game mechanics into real-world contexts rather than developing full-fledged games.

These data reveal that gamification gained prominence after 2020, with earlier studies (2017–2019) favoring standalone games. Serious games emerged more frequently in later years (2022–2024), suggesting a diversification of approaches.

3.4. Gamification Mechanisms and Strategies

Table 5. Interventions (sorted chronologically by publication year).

Author (Year)	Interventions
Altarriba et al. (2017) [33]	Smart bin with camera, notifications, social media posts.
Fadhil (2017) [34]	Development of CiboPoliBot, an educational chatbot that uses game mechanics to teach children about healthy diets and food waste management.
Joyner et al. (2017) [35]	FIT Game presented in cafeterias with comic book episodes, where children’s vegetable consumption influenced game outcomes. Goals were set to consume a certain amount of vegetables, and success led to narrative progression and earning virtual currency.
Sato et al. (2018) [36]	Players take on roles of milk manufacturers and supermarkets, participating in auctions and making decisions to minimize waste while maximizing sales.
Anderson and Reid (2019) [37]	Participants made purchase decisions individually and in groups using a card game that presented trade-offs between temptation and risk of waste.
Dolnicar et al. (2020) [38]	Families received a stamp for each day they had zero plate waste; collecting all stamps during their stay earned them a prize.
Gaggi et al. (2020) [39]	Development of PadovaGoGreen, a mobile game that teaches waste sorting rules through quizzes and interactive gameplay with a mascot (Sansone the trash can).
Jacobsen et al. (2020) [40]	Deployment of the Waste Wizard, an automatic waste sorting bin using image recognition and machine learning to classify and sort waste in a zoo, retail store, and music festival.
Soma et al. (2020) [41]	Three types of interventions were tested: passive information (booklets and newsletters), community workshops, and gamification (online trivia game).
Sinclair et al. (2021) [42]	Serious game where players answer food waste-related questions. Incorrect answers lead to visual feedback where virtual food is discarded, provoking emotional engagement and reflection on waste.
He et al. (2021) [43]	Development of interactive platforms that enhance user motivation, improve capabilities through knowledge and practice, and trigger food-saving behavior via rewards and feedback.
Nkwo et al. (2021) [44]	Evaluation and comparison of 148 mobile apps based on PSD strategies such as reduction, personalization, self-monitoring, reminders, and social support.
Haas et al. (2022) [45]	Development of the MySusCof mobile app with gamified educational content, quizzes, rewards for completing modules, and tracking user progress.
Seiler et al. (2022) [46]	Development of a VR prototype featuring gamification elements to educate users about proper food storage and waste reduction. The prototype was tested using A/B testing in an online experiment.
Sato and Mizuyama (2022) [47]	Development of two serious games: Veggie Mart Game (for consumers) and Milky-Chain Game (for businesses). These games simulate supply chain operations and educate players on minimizing food loss.
Tian and Zheng (2022) [48]	This study simulates different government policies (incentive-guided and punishment-inhibited) and caterer interventions (prior and resultant interventions) to reduce food waste.
Tuah et al. (2022) [49]	Development of a mobile application that includes gamification elements (points, rankings, levels, rewards) to encourage proper food waste disposal and enhance user engagement. The app supports waste collection, disposal, and tracking processes using the Black Soldier Fly (BSF) decomposition method.
Miller et al. (2023) [50]	*Farm to Fork* serious game, where students engage with a simulated food system to learn about food production, waste, and healthy choices. Discussions reinforced key lessons.
Jespersen et al. (2023) [51]	FoodFighters app that encourages users to take pictures of food items, customize them into "Food Fighters," and use them in battles against other players.
Jung (2023) [52]	Wearable device (CoCo) that provides feedback on composting habits, tracks composting locations, and gives emotional responses (tail wagging) based on user behavior.
Löchtefeld et al. (2023) [53]	Development of the FridgeSort game, where users learn to sort fridge items correctly through interactive levels and receive points for accuracy and speed.
Perera et al. (2023) [54]	Survey and follow-up interviews to understand household practices, followed by recommendations for designing interventions tailored to household contexts and practices.
Pajpach et al. (2023) [55]	Development of the Exspiro mobile app that notifies users of impending food expiration, suggests recipes using food nearing its expiration date, and provides statistical feedback on household food waste.
Rodrigues et al. (2023) [56]	Interdisciplinary educational outdoor quiz, in a treasure hunt approach, that challenges users to find specific locations with AR.
Vasconcelos et al. (2023) [57]	A mobile game designed for children aged 9-12, focusing on food storage, leftover management, and meal planning. The game features a character named Chef Eduardo who guides players through tasks aimed at reducing food waste.
Yu et al. (2023) [58]	Two-week campaign at HKUST involving over 200 participants. Participants logged food-saving actions via the mobile app and received rewards and badges for their efforts. The system included a dashboard displaying real-time food waste data and tips.
Elnakib et al. (2024) [59]	Six 45-min lessons including informative videos, PowerPoint slides, hands-on activities, and games.
Hamada et al. (2024) [60]	App with gamification.
Santa Cruz et al. (2024) [61]	Development of an interactive educational platform with gamified sections, including quizzes and challenges focused on nutrition, sustainability, and food science.

summarizes the game mechanics and strategies used across studies. The reviewed interventions incorporated various gamification elements, including interactive quizzes, mobile applications with feedback and rewards, smart bins with tracking systems, and simulation-based role-playing experiences to engage participants in food waste management.

Early interventions (2017–2019) emphasized physical tools (e.g., smart bins) and simple gamification, while later work (2020–2024) increasingly adopted mobile apps and complex simulations, reflecting advancements in digital engagement strategies.

3.5. Interventions Considering the Food Waste

Interventions targeting food waste align with its occurrence at three primary stages: before purchase, after purchase, and disposal [14,15].

Table 6. Food waste stages and corresponding interventions.

Food Waste Stage	Interventions from Reviewed Studies
Before Purchase (Production and Processing)	- Gamified policy simulations for food waste reduction (e.g., Tian and Zheng, 2022) [48].
	- Gamification in supply chain education and management (e.g., Sato and Mizuyama, 2022; Sato et al., 2018) [36,47].
After Purchase (Retail and Consumption)	- Smart inventory tracking to prevent food spoilage (e.g., Pajpach et al., 2023) [55]; (Jespersen et al., 2023) [51]; Game-based learning to improve food literacy and waste awareness (e.g., Miller et al., 2023) [50].
	- Gamification strategies reducing impulse buying (e.g., Anderson and Reid, 2019) [37].
	- Educational serious games for portion control and meal planning (e.g., Vasconcelos et al., 2023) [57]; (Hamada et al., 2024) [60].
	- Reward-based interventions promoting mindful consumption (e.g., Dolnicar et al., 2020) [38].
	- Food labeling and date awareness education (e.g., He et al., 2021) [43]; (Seiler et al., 2022) [46].
	- Behavioral interventions targeting food purchasing habits (e.g., Elnakib et al., 2024) [59].
	- Gamification encouraging household cooperation and social norm adherence (e.g., Yu et al., 2023) [58].
	- Augmented reality and gamified apps guiding storage practices (e.g., Löchtefeld et al., 2023) [53].
	- Emotional engagement fostering responsible food consumption (e.g., Sinclair et al., 2021) [42].
	- Gamified nutrition education improving food-related behaviors (e.g., Santa Cruz et al., 2024) [61].
	- Chatbot-driven gamification for influencing food purchases and consumption (e.g., Fadhil, 2017) [34].
	- FIT Game interventions promoting vegetable consumption in schools (e.g., Joyner et al., 2017) [35].
Disposal and Composting	- Gamified solutions for composting and organic waste management (e.g., Jung, 2023) [52].
	- Serious games and interactive learning promoting responsible disposal (e.g., Rodrigues et al., 2023) [56].
	- VR-based waste reduction education (e.g., Seiler et al., 2022) [46].
	- Gamified waste sorting interventions (e.g., Gaggi et al., 2020) [39]; (Nkwo et al., 2021) [44].
	- Persuasive system design strategies to promote sustainable waste disposal (e.g., Nkwo et al., 2021) [44].
	- Gamified food sharing and redistribution platforms (e.g., Yu et al., 2023) [58].
	- Incentivized structures for food donation and reuse (e.g., Perera et al., 2023) [54].
	- AI-powered gamification tracking disposal behaviors (e.g., Hamada et al., 2024) [60].
	- Reward-based interventions to minimize edible food disposal (e.g., Tuah et al., 2022) [49].
	- Smart waste sorting bins leveraging gamification (e.g., Jacobsen et al., 2020) [40].
	- Gamified disposal tracking and awareness campaigns using smart bins (e.g., Altarriba et al., 2017) [33].

maps reviewed studies to these stages, demonstrating how gamification strategies address food waste reduction at different points in the supply chain.

3.6. Impact and Outcomes of Interventions

Table 7. Outcomes in food waste management (sorted chronologically by publication year).

Author (Year)	Outcomes
Altarriba et al. (2017) [33]	Intended to raise awareness and reduce food waste (prototype stage).
Fadhil (2017) [34]	Increased awareness and knowledge about healthy eating and food waste reduction among primary school students; preliminary results suggest enhanced engagement and learning outcomes compared to traditional methods.
Joyner et al. (2017) [35]	Significant increase in vegetable consumption (99.9% increase) during intervention phases, demonstrating that gamified approaches can effectively promote healthier eating habits in school settings.
Sato et al. (2018) [36]	Increased awareness of supply chain issues and milk waste; educational impact demonstrated through pre- and post-game questionnaires showing improved understanding of food waste issues.
Anderson and Reid (2019) [37]	Group decision-making deferred choices to purchase high-risk multi-buy offers, potentially reducing food waste.
Dolnicar et al. (2020) [38]	The intervention led to a 34% reduction in plate waste, demonstrating the effectiveness of gamification in reducing food waste.
Gaggi et al. (2020) [39]	Improved knowledge and practices in waste sorting among users, evidenced by higher quiz scores and better game performance over levels.
Jacobsen et al. (2020) [40]	Enhanced awareness and engagement in waste sorting, playful interaction leading to increased interest and better understanding of proper waste sorting practices.
Soma et al. (2020) [41]	Only the gamification group had a marginally significant result in reducing edible food waste (p = 0.07). Frequent gamers generated less edible food waste than infrequent gamers.
Sinclair et al. (2021) [42]	Increased awareness and strong emotional reactions to food waste. Encouraged reflection on consumption habits through an interactive, loss-based design.
He et al. (2021) [43]	Increased awareness and motivation to save food, improved food-saving habits through engaging and educational experiences.
Nkwo et al. (2021) [44]	Improved user engagement and effectiveness of apps employing multiple persuasive strategies, correlation between the number of strategies used and app effectiveness.
Haas et al. (2022) [45]	Increased user engagement, improved awareness and knowledge about food waste, positive behavior change intentions among users, high perceived app quality.
Seiler et al. (2022) [46]	Significant positive effects on perceived learning outcomes (PLO) and intention to use (ITU) the VR application, with gamified elements enhancing user engagement and learning.
Sato and Mizuyama (2022) [47]	Increased awareness and knowledge about food loss and waste among players, improved understanding of supply chain dynamics and strategies for reducing waste.
Tian and Zheng (2022) [48]	This study finds that a combination of government incentives and penalties, along with active caterer interventions, can effectively reduce food waste by aligning consumer behavior with desired social norms.
Tuah et al. (2022) [49]	Increased user involvement and motivation to properly dispose of food waste, improved food waste management practices, and enhanced BSF production for sustainable waste management.
Miller et al. (2023) [50]	Increased awareness of food systems, waste, and healthy eating choices among students. Participants requested additional content on food handling and processing.
Jespersen et al. (2023) [51]	Preliminary studies showed improved memory retention of food items and increased engagement, indicating potential for reduced food waste through better awareness of existing food stocks.
Jung (2023) [52]	Increased awareness and motivation to compost among users; improved composting habits due to engaging and empathic design.
Löchtefeld et al. (2023) [53]	Participants quickly learned and retained the fridge-sorting method, suggesting potential for real-world application and reduction in food waste.
Perera et al. (2023)	Insights into household consumption patterns, identification of barriers to sustainable practices, and opportunities for designing more effective interventions to reduce food waste and other forms of household consumption.
Pajpach et al. (2023) [55]	Increased awareness and reduction in food waste due to timely notifications and practical recipe suggestions; statistical module helps users understand and manage their food waste better.
Rodrigues et al. (2023) [56]	The food waste question only had one team select an incorrect answer. Among the options “recycling”, “renewable energies”, “food waste”, and “ocean plastic pollution”, “ocean plastic pollution” was the one that most concerned them (13 students).
Vasconcelos et al. (2023) [57]	Increased engagement and awareness about food waste among children; improved food-saving habits through gameplay and interactive learning.
Yu et al. (2023) [58]	Increased awareness of food waste issues and promoted food-saving behavior among participants. The campaign logged over 800 food-saving actions and highlighted the effectiveness of combining data visualization and gamification to foster sustainable habits.
Elnakib et al. (2024) [59]	Significant improvements in knowledge, social norms, behavioral intentions, and perceived behavioral control post-intervention in the experimental group compared to the control group.
Hamada et al. (2024) [60]	Focus group/exploratory stage. Presented interest on the subject.
Santa Cruz et al. (2024) [61]	Improved food nutrition knowledge and dietary habits among children and parents, contributing to reduced food waste.

outlines the impact of the reviewed interventions on food waste behaviors.

Later studies (2020–2024) demonstrated measurable reductions in food waste (e.g., Dolnicar et al., 2020: 34% reduction) [38], whereas earlier work focused on awareness-building (e.g., Joyner et al., 2017) [35].

The results indicate that most studies reported positive outcomes. Many interventions contributed to increased awareness and knowledge about food waste management by providing participants with educational content and interactive experiences. Some studies demonstrated improvements in food-saving habits, where behavioral reinforcement mechanisms, such as progress tracking and goal setting, encouraged participants to adopt more sustainable practices.

In several cases, interventions led to significant reductions in actual food waste, with measurable decreases in discarded food items following gamified engagement.

3.7. Summary of Key Findings

The results of this literature review indicate that gamification is the dominant approach in food waste interventions, with more studies adopting game mechanics rather than full-fledged serious games. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) emerged as the most frequently applied framework, reinforcing the role of cognitive and behavioral strategies in shaping food-related habits. Interventions leveraging interactive platforms and mobile applications demonstrated higher engagement levels, suggesting that digital tools play a critical role in sustaining behavioral change. The measured outcomes highlight a generally positive impact, particularly in raising awareness and modifying food-related behaviors through gamified experiences. These findings suggest that future research should explore long-term behavioral retention and more complex engagement strategies to enhance the effectiveness of gamification in food waste reduction.

4. Discussion

4.1. Behavioral Approach and Theoretical Framework

The analysis of behavioral approaches and theoretical frameworks employed in the studies reveals diverse strategies aimed at influencing food waste behaviors. The most prevalent frameworks include the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), emotional engagement, and systems thinking. Other approaches, such as utility theory, cognitive load theory, and experiential learning, were used less frequently but still provided valuable insights into behavior change in the context of food waste management.

4.2. Comparison with Existing Literature

The findings of this systematic review extend and reinforce existing literature by emphasizing the specific strengths and limitations of interactive gamification strategies for food waste reduction. Previous studies, such as the European Commission Joint Research Centre report (2023) [32], Casonato et al. (2023) [62], and Kaur et al. (2021) [31], have largely addressed psychological factors, including social norms and habit formation, through predominantly passive strategies. The current review adds a complementary perspective, demonstrating that active gamified interventions, such as real-time feedback, interactive challenges, and dynamic reward systems, effectively reinforce positive behavior by deepening user engagement.

Casonato, 2023 [62] further presented that food waste interventions incorporating co-creation and digital engagement show promise in changing behavior. This aligns with the findings of this review, which suggest that gamification enhances user participation, particularly through reward-based motivation mechanisms. However, as both studies highlight, achieving long-term engagement remains a challenge, reinforcing the need for continuous innovation in intervention design.

However, consistent with the methodological concerns raised by Kaur et al. (2021) [31] and the observations by Stepanovic and Mettler (2018) [63], our review also highlights critical limitations in current gamification practices, particularly regarding the lack of evidence for sustained long-term behavior change. Stepanovic and Mettler (2018) [63] specifically questioned the long-term efficacy of gamified interventions, suggesting that initial engagement driven by novelty often declines once users become habituated. This skepticism is supported by the findings presented here, as most reviewed studies failed to conduct longitudinal assessments, thereby limiting conclusions about enduring behavioral impacts.

Moreover, the importance of socio-demographic targeting identified by Koivupuro et al. (2012) [64] is further reinforced by this review, underscoring the necessity of tailoring gamification strategies to specific user groups. The variability in intervention outcomes suggests that generic gamification approaches may not uniformly motivate diverse user populations. Thus, integrating demographic-sensitive designs, as advocated by previous researchers, remains crucial for maximizing effectiveness.

In contrast to passive visual nudges, such as the human eye cues tested by Lotti et al. (2023) [65], which showed mixed effectiveness depending on their combination with explicit sorting instructions, our review indicates that interactive, participation-intensive gamification is more effective at fostering meaningful and lasting behavioral shifts. Similarly, the meta-analysis by Zhang et al. (2023) [66] highlights the limited impact of cognitively oriented nudges (e.g., informational prompts) in reducing food waste, while behaviorally oriented nudges—those actively shaping user actions—exhibit significantly stronger effects. These findings underscore the need for interventions that move beyond passive engagement and instead actively involve users in sustained, interactive experiences to drive long-term behavioral change.

Finally, aligning with the scientometric review by Bassanelli et al. (2022) [24], our findings confirm a broader trend towards methodological rigor in gamification research, emphasizing structured approaches and empirical validation. However, despite this positive development, our analysis illustrates ongoing gaps, particularly the insufficient longitudinal evaluations and potential engagement decline identified by Stepanovic and Mettler (2018) [63].

The correlation of studies with measures to reduce and prevent food waste (

Table 8. Underlying reasons for food waste and corresponding measures to reduce and prevent it (adapted from Schanes et al., 2018) [3].

Underlying Reasons for Food Waste	Measures to Reduce and Prevent Food Waste
Understanding and Perceptions of Food Waste
Lack of awareness about the amount of food wasted	- Information campaigns on food waste as an environmental, economic, and social problem (e.g., Bassanelli et al., 2022 [24]).
	- Data visualization dashboards for real-time food waste tracking (e.g., Yu et al., 2023 [58]).
	- Mobile applications that monitor household food waste (e.g., Pajpach et al., 2023 [55]).
Insufficient concern about food waste	- Gamified interventions promoting awareness and social responsibility (e.g., Sinclair et al., 2021 [42]; Vasconcelos et al., 2023 [57]).
	- Virtual reality experiences illustrating the environmental impact of food waste (e.g., Seiler et al., 2022 [46]).
Acceptance of wasting food as a social norm	- Communication campaigns reinforcing the idea that food waste is socially and morally unacceptable (e.g., Joyner et al., 2017 [35]).
	- Gamified interventions rewarding sustainable behaviors (e.g., Dolnicar et al., 2020 [38]).
Food-Related Household Practices and Routines
Lack of planning for food shopping and meals	- Interactive tools for meal planning and inventory tracking (e.g., Exspiro app by Pajpach et al., 2023 [55]).
	- Mobile apps providing reminders and meal suggestions based on expiry dates (e.g., Hamada et al., 2024 [60]).
Lack of control on food supply and location at home	- Smart fridges and food inventory tracking applications (e.g., Löchtefeld et al., 2023 [53]).
	- Digital reminders for food expiration and storage optimization (e.g., Jespersen et al., 2023 [51]).
Inadequate communication between household members	- Collaborative mobile apps that allow multiple household members to track shared food inventory (e.g., He et al., 2021 [43]).
Shopping and Consumption Behaviors
Preference for fresh food/lack of acceptance of imperfect food	- Education efforts promoting acceptance of visually imperfect but edible food (e.g., Perera et al., 2023 [54]).
	- Gamified supermarket campaigns encouraging purchases of food nearing expiration (e.g., Tian and Zheng, 2022 [48]).
Time constraints and convenience-oriented shopping	- Pre-packaged meal kits and portion control strategies (e.g., Vasconcelos et al., 2023 [57]).
	- Gamification elements encouraging mindful food purchasing (e.g., Anderson and Reid, 2019 [37]).
Storage and Food Management Practices
Improper and unsystematic storage practices	- Gamified educational platforms improving storage knowledge (e.g., Santa Cruz et al., 2024 [61]).
Cooking and Eating Habits
Over-preparation of food	- Training programs on portion control and smart cooking habits (e.g., Gaggi et al., 2020 [39]).
	- Mobile applications suggesting portion sizes based on user input (e.g., Tuah et al., 2022 [49]).
Lack of knowledge and skills for cooking with leftovers	- Serious games and educational apps teaching creative ways to repurpose leftovers (e.g., Rodrigues et al., 2023 [56]).
	- Gamification rewarding users for using leftovers effectively (e.g., Sato and Mizuyama, 2022 [47]).
Eating out in restaurants/large plate sizes	- Reducing portion sizes and offering "half-portion" options in gamified restaurant settings (e.g., Dolnicar et al., 2020 [38]).
Food Safety Perceptions and Edibility Awareness
Confusion about date labels	- Streamlining and optimizing food labeling systems (e.g., Seiler et al., 2022 [46]).
	- Mobile apps providing education on food safety and expiration dates (e.g., He et al., 2021 [43]).
Concerns about foodborne illnesses and food safety	- VR simulations teaching proper food storage and expiration awareness (e.g., Seiler et al., 2022 [46]).
Disposal and Waste Justification
Justification of food waste due to composting, feeding pets, or recycling	- Gamified systems encouraging composting and proper disposal (e.g., Jung, 2023 [52]).
	- Wearable technology providing feedback on composting behaviors (e.g., Compost Companion by Jung, 2023 [52]).

) provides further insights into the effectiveness of different interventions. The adaptation of Schanes et al. (2018) [3] in our analysis allowed for a structured comparison, mapping interventions to specific food waste mitigation measures. The table highlights how interventions address behavioral challenges such as household planning, storage improvements, food-sharing acceptance, and policy influences. By aligning reviewed studies with practical prevention measures, we further reinforce the argument that gamified interventions require a combination of behavior centric design and systemic policy support to ensure lasting impact.

Given these points, future research must prioritize longitudinal studies, incorporate strategies to periodically renew user engagement, and further tailor interventions to specific demographic contexts. Such improvements would enable a deeper understanding of gamification’s true potential in producing sustainable and enduring behavioral changes related to food waste.

4.2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior

Several studies employed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to examine how attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence individuals’ intentions and behaviors related to food waste. Anderson and Reid (2019) [37] utilized TPB to explore collaborative decision-making in multi-buy food purchases [37]. Elnakib et al. (2024) [59] applied TPB in a climate change and food waste curriculum intervention for adolescents [59]. Soma et al. (2020) [41] tested various consumer awareness interventions to reduce food waste, utilizing TPB to understand behavioral change [41].

4.2.2. Emotional Engagement and Reflection

Emotional engagement and reflection were emphasized by studies that aimed to create a strong emotional connection with users to influence their behavior regarding food waste. Jung (2023) [52] developed the Compost Companion (CoCo), a wearable device that uses emotional feedback to support composting habits [52]. Sinclair et al. (2021) created a serious game, Face-The-Waste, to provoke strong emotional reactions and reflections on food waste [42].

4.2.3. Educational Engagement Through Gamification

Several studies focused on educational engagement through gamification to improve knowledge and encourage sustainable behaviors in food management. Santa Cruz et al. (2024) [61] developed a gamification tool for children and parents to improve their food nutrition knowledge and dietary habits [61]. Gaggi et al. (2020) [39] created a serious game to teach waste sorting and recycling [39]. Vasconcelos et al. (2023) [57] employed a gamified approach to household food waste reduction [57].

4.2.4. Other Approaches

Various other approaches were also utilized, each providing unique insights into food waste reduction:

Dolnicar et al. (2020) [38] combined utility theory and social norms to motivate individuals to adopt waste-reducing behaviors [38]. Hamada et al. (2024) [60] explored the impact of gamification on food-related behaviors using cognitive load theory [60]. Rodrigues et al. (2023) [56] utilized a game-based learning strategy to increase environmental awareness among students [56]. Haas et al. (2022) [45] combined enjoyment and practicality in a gamified approach to enhance user engagement and behavior change [45]. Nkwo et al. (2021) [44] analyzed mobile apps promoting sustainable waste management using the Persuasive System Design (PSD) framework [44]. He et al. (2021) [43] designed interactive platforms using the Fogg Behavior Model (FBM) to enhance motivation, ability, and triggers for encouraging food-saving behaviors [43]. Sato et al. (2018) [36] and Sato and Mizuyama (2022) [47] adopted experiential learning frameworks in simulation games to educate players on minimizing food loss and waste [36,47]. Seiler et al. (2022) [46] applied the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to assess user engagement and acceptance of a VR application for food storage and waste reduction education [46]. Tian and Zheng (2022) [48] used normative illusion and evolutionary game theory to simulate policies aimed at reducing food waste [48]. Perera et al. (2023) explored household consumption behaviors using a practice-oriented view and social norms [54].

4.3. Interventions

The studies reviewed implemented a variety of interventions aimed at reducing food waste through gamified and educational approaches. The interventions ranged from mobile applications and wearable devices to interactive installations and serious games. The most common types of interventions included mobile apps with gamified elements, educational platforms, and interactive games.

4.3.1. Mobile Applications with Gamified Elements

Many studies developed mobile applications that incorporated gamification to enhance user engagement and promote food waste reduction. Hamada et al. (2024) [60] developed an app with gamification features to reduce food-related cognitive load [60]. Gaggi et al. (2020) [39] created PadovaGoGreen, a mobile game that teaches waste sorting through quizzes and interactive gameplay [39]. Haas et al. (2022) [45] developed the MySusCof app with gamified educational content, quizzes, and rewards [45]. Jespersen et al. (2023) [51] introduced FoodFighters, a mobile serious game where users take pictures of food items and customize them into characters for battles [51]. Löchtefeld et al. (2023) [53] developed FridgeSort, a mobile game teaching users to sort fridge items correctly [53]. Yu et al. (2023) [58] conducted a two-week campaign with a mobile app that logged food-saving actions and provided rewards [58]. Pajpach et al. (2023) [55] created Exspiro, an app that notifies users of impending food expiration and suggests recipes [55].

4.3.2. Educational Platforms and Serious Games

Several studies focused on developing educational platforms and serious games to teach users about sustainable practices and food waste reduction. Santa Cruz et al. (2024) [61] developed an interactive educational platform with gamified sections on nutrition and sustainability [61]. Rodrigues et al. (2023) [56] implemented an interdisciplinary educational outdoor quiz using AR in a treasure hunt approach [56]. Jung (2023) [52] created CoCo, a wearable device that provides feedback on composting habits [52]. Sato et al. (2018) [36] designed a multiplayer game simulating milk supply chain management to educate on minimizing waste [36]. Sato and Mizuyama (2022) [47] developed the Veggie Mart Game and Milky-Chain Game to simulate supply chain operations and minimize food loss [47].

4.3.3. Interactive Installations and Systems Approaches

Interactive installations and systems approaches were also employed to engage users and improve food waste management. Altarriba et al. (2017) implemented a smart bin with a camera, notifications, and social media integration [33]. Sinclair et al. (2021) developed an interactive installation where incorrect answers to food waste questions resulted in real food falling into a bin, creating a strong emotional response [42]. Jacobsen et al. (2020) [40] deployed the Waste Wizard, an automatic waste sorting bin using image recognition and machine learning [40]. Seiler et al. (2022) [46] developed a VR prototype with gamification elements to educate users on proper food storage and waste reduction [46].

4.3.4. Behavioral and Cognitive Interventions

Some studies focused on cognitive and behavioral interventions to influence food waste reduction. Elnakib et al. (2024) [59] conducted six 45-min lessons, including videos, slides, and hands-on activities [59]. Anderson and Reid (2019) [37] used a card game to study purchase decisions and their impact on food waste [37]. He et al. (2021) [43] developed interactive platforms to enhance user motivation and capabilities through rewards and feedback [43]. Dolnicar et al. (2020) [38] implemented a stamp collection system for zero plate waste days, rewarding families with prizes [38].

4.3.5. Miscellaneous Interventions

Other notable interventions included chatbots, community workshops, surveys, and the impact of government policies and simulations. Tian and Zheng (2022) [48] simulated different government policies and caterer interventions to reduce food waste [48]. Fadhil (2017) [34] developed CiboPoliBot, an educational chatbot using game mechanics [34]. Soma et al. (2020) [41] tested passive information, community workshops, and online trivia games as interventions [41]. Perera et al. (2023) conducted surveys and follow-up interviews to design tailored interventions [54]. Nkwo et al. (2021) [44] evaluated and compared 148 mobile apps based on PSD strategies [44].

4.4. Outcomes in Food Waste Management

The studies reviewed demonstrate a variety of outcomes related to food waste management, emphasizing the effectiveness of different interventions in raising awareness, changing behaviors, and reducing food waste.

4.4.1. Increased Awareness and Knowledge

Many interventions increased awareness and knowledge about food waste, food systems, and sustainability. Rodrigues et al. (2023) [56] reported that the quiz intervention highlighted ocean plastic pollution as a significant concern among students [56]. Jung (2023) [52] found that CoCo increased users’ awareness and motivation to compost [52]. Santa Cruz et al. (2024) [61] showed that the platform improved food nutrition knowledge and dietary habits among children and parents [61]. Elnakib et al. (2024) [59] observed significant improvements in knowledge, social norms, behavioral intentions, and perceived behavioral control [59]. Fadhil (2017) [34] reported that CiboPoliBot increased awareness and knowledge about healthy eating and food waste reduction among students [34]. Gaggi et al. (2020) [39] noted that users improved their knowledge and practices in waste sorting [39]. Haas et al. (2022) [45] reported increased awareness and knowledge about food waste and positive behavior change intentions [45]. Jacobsen et al. (2020) [40] observed enhanced awareness and engagement in waste-sorting practices [40]. Miller et al. (2023) found that adolescents showed increased awareness and knowledge about food systems and waste management [50]. Sato et al. (2018) [36] and Sato and Mizuyama (2022) [47] reported increased awareness of supply chain issues and milk waste [36,47]. Vasconcelos et al. (2023) [57] observed increased engagement and awareness about food waste among children [57]. Pajpach et al. (2023) [55] reported increased awareness and reduction in food waste due to timely notifications and practical recipe suggestions [55].

4.4.2. Behavior Change and Reduced Food Waste

Several interventions led to significant behavior changes and reductions in food waste. Anderson and Reid (2019) [37] found that group decision-making deferred high-risk purchases, potentially reducing food waste [37]. Dolnicar et al. (2020) [38] reported that their intervention reduced plate waste by 34%, demonstrating the effectiveness of gamification [38]. Joyner et al. (2017) [35] observed a 99.9% increase in vegetable consumption during the intervention phases [35]. Löchtefeld et al. (2023) [53] found that participants quickly learned and retained fridge-sorting methods, suggesting potential real-world application [53]. Soma et al. (2020) [41] reported that the gamification group significantly reduced edible food waste, with frequent gamers generating less waste [41]. Tian and Zheng (2022) [48] found that a combination of government incentives and penalties effectively reduced food waste by aligning consumer behavior with social norms [48]. Yu et al. (2023) [58] reported that their campaign logged over 800 food-saving actions, demonstrating the effectiveness of data visualization and gamification [58].

4.4.3. User Engagement and Learning Outcomes

Some interventions focused on enhancing user engagement and improving learning outcomes. Jespersen et al. (2023) [51] found improved memory retention of food items and increased engagement [51]. Seiler et al. (2022) [46] reported significant positive effects on perceived learning outcomes and intention to use the VR application [46]. Sinclair et al. (2021) observed high emotional involvement and increased reflection on food waste [42]. He et al. (2021) [43] reported increased awareness and motivation to save food and improved food-saving habits through engaging experiences [43]. Perera et al. (2023) identified insights into household consumption patterns and opportunities for more effective interventions [54].

4.4.4. Miscellaneous Outcomes

Other notable outcomes included exploratory stages, prototype testing, and evaluations of various interventions. Hamada et al. (2024) [60] reported that their study is currently in the focus group and exploratory stage [60]. Altarriba et al. (2017) noted that their intervention intended to raise awareness and reduce food waste is still in the prototype stage [33]. Nkwo et al. (2021) [44] observed improved user engagement and app effectiveness, with a correlation between the number of persuasive strategies and app effectiveness [44]. Tuah et al. (2022) [49] reported increased user involvement and motivation to dispose of food waste appropriately, improved food waste management practices [49].

4.5. Answering the Research Questions

The findings from this systematic review provide insights into how games and gamification mechanisms contribute to food waste reduction. This section addresses each research question, summarizing key results from the reviewed studies.

Research Question 1: How are games and gamification mechanisms being used to address food waste?

Games and gamification mechanisms are applied through mobile applications, serious games, interactive installations, and educational platforms. These interventions incorporate elements such as feedback loops, challenges, and reward systems to enhance user engagement. Mobile apps with gamified features are the most prevalent, providing real-time tracking, reminders, and incentives to encourage food-saving habits. Serious games and interactive installations have also shown promise in raising awareness and fostering long-term behavior change, especially when they leverage immersive or emotionally engaging experiences.

Research Question 2: How do these interventions impact participants’ attitudes and behavioral intentions concerning food waste?

Gamified interventions positively influence participants’ attitudes and behavioral intentions by increasing awareness, enhancing motivation, and reinforcing sustainable food practices. Studies indicate that participants exposed to gamified interventions report higher engagement levels, improved knowledge about food waste, and stronger intentions to adopt waste-reducing behaviors. Gamification elements such as goal-setting, real-time feedback, and social comparison contribute to these changes by making food-saving behaviors more interactive and rewarding. Additionally, interventions incorporating behavioral frameworks, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), show a greater likelihood of sustained attitude shifts.

Research Question 3: What specific interventions do games and gamification mechanisms employ to reduce food waste?

The reviewed studies highlight a variety of gamified interventions, including educational mobile applications, behavior-tracking tools, and immersive game-based learning experiences. Common intervention strategies involve habit-tracking mechanisms, gamified rewards for waste reduction, and interactive challenges designed to promote mindful food consumption. Several interventions utilize augmented reality (AR) or artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance engagement, while others incorporate social and collaborative features to encourage community-based behavior change.

Research Question 4: What are the measured outcomes of using games and gamification in reducing food waste?

The outcomes of gamified interventions indicate positive effects on awareness, food waste reduction, and user engagement. Many studies report an increase in food-saving knowledge and self-reported behavioral changes, while some provide empirical evidence of reduced household or institutional food waste. The most effective interventions integrate interactive elements with habit-forming mechanisms, such as progress tracking and rewards, leading to measurable reductions in food disposal. Studies also show that interventions incorporating emotional engagement strategies, such as reflective gameplay or real-world consequences, tend to have a stronger impact on behavior change.

Overall, the findings highlight the increasing role of gamification in food waste interventions, with mobile and digital tools emerging as the most effective strategies for fostering engagement and behavior change. Future research should explore long-term behavioral retention and assess the scalability of these interventions in different socio-cultural contexts.

5. Conclusions

This systematic literature review explored the role of games and gamification mechanisms in reducing household food waste. By synthesizing findings from a diverse set of 30 studies, the review identified strategies and theoretical frameworks that influence food waste behaviors. The most prevalent frameworks included the Theory of Planned Behavior, emotional engagement, and systems thinking, which were instrumental in shaping effective interventions.

Various interventions, such as mobile applications, serious games, educational platforms, and interactive installations, demonstrated significant potential in raising awareness, enhancing knowledge, and promoting behavior change. Notable interventions, including MySusCof, Exspiro, FoodFighters, and PadovaGoGreen, successfully engaged users and contributed to measurable reductions in food waste. Despite these successes, challenges remain in achieving long-term behavior retention, ensuring scalable deployment, and adapting interventions to diverse social and economic contexts.

Sustaining engagement in gamified interventions presents a well-documented challenge, particularly due to the risk of user boredom over time [63]. While initial engagement may be high, studies in gamification research suggest that novelty-driven participation often declines unless mechanisms for long-term motivation, such as dynamic difficulty adjustment and evolving incentives, are incorporated [67]. Future interventions must address this issue by integrating adaptive engagement strategies that prolong user interest and commitment.

This review highlights the need for continued development and refinement of gamified interventions to address the growing issue of food waste sustainably. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to assess the lasting impact of these interventions and explore the integration of emerging technologies such as augmented reality and artificial intelligence to enhance engagement and behavior change. Additionally, understanding the socio-economic and cultural factors that influence the adoption of gamified interventions can help tailor strategies to diverse populations, maximizing their effectiveness in reducing household food waste.

Overall, gamification and serious games present valuable tools for addressing the global food waste crisis, fostering sustainable behaviors, and promoting long-term positive change. However, their effectiveness depends on continuous research, innovation, and adaptation to real-world challenges.

Limitations of the Review

While this systematic review provides valuable insights into the use of gamification for food waste reduction, certain limitations must be acknowledged.

First, most studies analyzed focus on short-term effects, with limited longitudinal data to assess whether gamified interventions lead to sustained reductions in food waste. Second, there is a strong geographical bias, as the majority of studies originate from high-income countries, raising concerns about the applicability of findings to low- and middle-income contexts where food waste behaviors may differ significantly.

Another limitation concerns the variability in how food waste is measured across studies. Different interventions employ distinct methodologies, from self-reported waste tracking to direct measurement, making cross-study comparisons challenging. Casonato et al. (2023) [62] similarly identified that inconsistent reporting of food waste reduction metrics limits the ability to evaluate intervention success across different contexts. A more standardized framework for measuring food waste reduction in gamified interventions would improve comparability and validity, aligning with the standardized EU food waste measurement methodology [11].

Finally, the categorization of interventions remains ambiguous in some cases, as the boundaries between games, serious games, and gamification elements can overlap. This classification challenge complicates systematic analysis and highlights the need for clearer distinctions in future research.

These limitations emphasize the importance of refining methodological approaches and expanding the scope of future studies to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the role of gamification in food waste reduction.

6. Future Research Directions

Future research should build upon the findings of this review to address existing gaps, improve data accuracy, and develop more effective and scalable gamified interventions. Several key areas warrant further investigation.

One critical area is enhancing the accuracy of food waste measurement. Many existing studies rely on self-reported data, which introduces bias and inaccuracies. Future work should explore standardized measurement methods, such as direct waste audits, smart bin technologies, or AI-driven food waste tracking, to provide more reliable assessments of intervention effectiveness. Standardizing outcome metrics is crucial, as food waste is currently measured in varied units (e.g., kilograms, packages, or individual units), and aligning gamification interventions with EU food waste reporting protocols could improve comparability and impact assessment [11].

Longitudinal studies are also needed to evaluate the sustainability of behavior changes induced by gamification. Most reviewed interventions assess short-term engagement and behavior change, but it remains unclear whether these effects persist over time. Insights from other disciplines, such as nutrition, food disorders, and social psychology, could inform methodologies for tracking behavioral change over extended periods. Studies examining long-term food habits, dietary tracking, or consumption reduction patterns could serve as useful analogs for evaluating gamified food waste interventions.

Another important direction is the adaptation of gamification strategies to different socio-economic and cultural contexts. The predominance of studies from high-income countries limits the generalizability of findings. As highlighted by Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015) [68], food waste behaviors are influenced by various psychographic and socio-demographic factors, such as household composition, individual motivations, cultural norms, consumer perceptions, and personal trade-offs between competing goals (e.g., convenience, safety concerns, and ethical considerations). Future research should explore how gamified interventions can account for these nuanced consumer characteristics, particularly in regions where food security concerns differ, thereby enhancing intervention effectiveness and cross-cultural applicability.

Integrating gamification into policy and systemic food waste reduction efforts could also enhance its effectiveness. While most interventions target individual behaviors, future research should explore how gamified approaches can complement government policies, educational programs, and corporate sustainability initiatives. Understanding how incentives, regulations, and community-based strategies can align with gamified interventions may lead to more comprehensive and scalable solutions.

Gamification strategies could also benefit from alignment with the food use hierarchy proposed by Schanes et al. (2018) and refined in the European Commission Joint Research Centre (2024) report [3,11]. This hierarchy prioritizes waste prevention at the source, followed by redistribution, recycling, and disposal. Future gamified interventions should be designed to promote mindful consumption, better inventory management, and food donation, while also incorporating sustainable disposal practices such as composting and biogas conversion.

Future research should also focus on defining clearer Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for evaluating gamified interventions. Current studies often rely on engagement metrics but lack standardized measures of real-world impact. Establishing more concrete evaluation criteria, such as food waste reduction in weight, economic savings, environmental benefits (e.g., CO₂ reduction, water usage), and social impacts, could lead to better understanding of interventions’ effectiveness. Luo et al. [69] demonstrated that immediate feedback in digital gamified interventions not only significantly improves waste sorting accuracy but also maintains improvements over time. Aligning KPIs with established frameworks, like those outlined by the European Commission [11], and incorporating robust cost-benefit analyses as recommended by Casonato et al. [62], could further enhance the assessment of long-term viability and policy relevance of gamified sustainability interventions. Future gamification research should integrate these evaluations to ensure practical viability in policy and community adoption.

Due to the risk of user boredom over time in gamification-based interventions [63], it is crucial to explore structured approaches that not only sustain engagement but also integrate behavioral changes into broader, reinforcing systems. Gamification frameworks such as Gamiflow [67] provide a systematic methodology for maintaining motivation through adaptive challenges, progression mechanics, and personalized incentives, ensuring that users remain engaged over time. While Gamiflow is effective at structuring engagement at the individual level, its integration into broader social and environmental contexts remains an open challenge.

Here, the Digital Environmental Stewardship (DES) framework [70] offers a complementary perspective by shifting the focus from individual behavior change to a networked, multi-actor system. While Gamiflow ensures engagement through structured mechanics, DES situates these interactions within a wider ecosystem of responsibilities, capacities, and interdependencies, reinforcing food waste reduction as a collective practice rather than an isolated effort.

Accessibility remains a key challenge in gamified interventions. Nacimiento-García et al. (2024) [71] highlighted usability barriers in serious games, particularly for users with limited digital literacy [72]. Future research should focus on inclusive design and adaptive interfaces to enhance accessibility.

Advancing research in these areas will contribute to a more data-driven, adaptable, and impactful use of gamification in food waste reduction, ensuring that interventions not only engage users but also drive meaningful and lasting behavioral change.