Syaifuddin Islami*
| Indang Dewata | Eri Barlian | Dewi Anggraini | Fajar Agung Mulia
© 2026 The authors. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
This PRISMA 2020–aligned systematic review synthesizes a Scopus-indexed corpus spanning 2017–2026 on sustainable circular economy (CE) municipal/solid waste management systems (MSWMS) and their triple-bottom-line (TBL) outcomes. From 333 records, 90 studies met eligibility criteria and were mapped using bibliometric science-mapping (Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny and VOSviewer) and full-text evidence-to-framework synthesis. Within the included corpus, the evidence base is concentrated in recycling/material recovery, organics valorization, and residual management, while prevention and reuse remain under-studied. The review identifies four recurring mechanisms through which CE strategies are associated with outcomes: (i) substitution, (ii) leakage reduction, (iii) market formation/value creation, and (iv) inclusion/legitimacy. An integrative framework and eight evidence-informed propositions (P1–P8) outline boundary conditions and help explain variation in performance across contexts. Using a multi-level perspective (MLP), regime factors, financing/cost recovery, infrastructure readiness, enforcement, market maturity, and data/monitoring emerge as prominent moderators, while niche technology reliability and landscape-level participation norms further condition outcomes. Robustness checks indicate that the relative prominence of the core mechanisms remains broadly stable across quality and method subsets, but social outcomes are operationalized least consistently, pointing to a focused research agenda on social metrics and upstream CE levers.
circular economy, municipal solid waste management, triple bottom line, multi-level perspective, evidence-to-framework synthesis
Municipal solid waste (MSW) has become a defining sustainability challenge because its impacts accumulate across environmental integrity, public health, and local economic resilience. Recent global re-assessments estimate that MSW generation in 2019 likely ranged from 2.3–3.1 billion tones and could rise to 2.89–4.54 billion tones by 2050, while “almost one-third of the total MSW generated is not collected,” and much of what is collected is not managed according to sound practices [1]. This combination of scale and systemic service gaps drives persistent pollution, avoidable greenhouse-gas emissions, and unequal exposure to health risks, making waste management not only a technical service problem, but a governance and development problem.
Within this context, the circular economy (CE) is increasingly framed as a transition pathway for reorienting waste systems away from end-of-pipe disposal toward value retention, resource productivity, and system redesign. Geissdoerfer et al. [2] defined CE as “a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized,” highlighting that circularity is pursued by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops rather than focusing solely on downstream recycling. For the waste sector, this implies reconfiguring upstream design choices, collection and sorting architectures, market incentives for secondary materials, and institutional arrangements that determine whether waste becomes a recoverable resource stream or an unmanaged externality.
However, CE is not interpreted or operationalized consistently across the waste-management literature. Kirchherr et al. [3], reviewing 114 definitions, observed that CE is “most frequently depicted as a combination of reduce, reuse and recycle activities,” while the need for broader systemic shift is often underemphasized. Complementing this definitional dispersion, Korhonen et al. [4] argued that the research content of CE can be “superficial and unorganized,” appearing as a collection of disparate ideas rather than a coherent analytical lens. This conceptual variability matters because it reduces comparability across studies and makes it harder to convert evidence into implementable pathways for cities and service providers.
A sustainability-oriented CE agenda therefore requires evaluation criteria that explicitly address trade-offs and distributional effects, not only material recovery. In practice, CE-for-waste studies often emphasize environmental outcomes (e.g., diversion, emissions), while social outcomes, occupational safety, procedural justice, inclusion of informal actors, and community well-being, are less consistently measured and synthesized [5]. Consistent with this concern, Elia et al. [6] concluded that “the social dimension of sustainability is currently the most neglected in Circular Economy assessment,” and highlighted heterogeneity and weak standardization in assessment approaches. For MSW systems, where frontline work conditions, community acceptance, and livelihood impacts can shape feasibility and legitimacy, this asymmetry in evidence limits both scholarship and policy design.
These issues reveal a synthesis gap with direct implications for both research and implementation in municipal/solid waste management systems (MSWMS). First, evidence is dispersed across technological options, governance instruments, and business-model initiatives, frequently reported without a shared causal logic that explains how specific CE strategies generate triple-bottom-line (TBL) outcomes [3, 4]. Second, the same intervention can yield different outcomes depending on contextual moderators such as market demand for secondary materials, institutional capacity for source separation and enforcement, financing constraints, and the role of informal collection and sorting networks [1, 5]. At the same time, conceptually adjacent waste studies are not always directly anchored in municipal systems, which makes a clearly bounded MSWMS-focused synthesis especially important.
While multiple reviews exist, they tend to cover adjacent, but incomplete, pieces of the puzzle. Reviews on CE assessment emphasize methodological fragmentation and the persistent neglect of social dimensions, but typically do not translate findings into waste-system transition mechanisms and actionable pathways [6]. Reviews dedicated to the social aspects of CE map social impact categories and measurement challenges across sectors, yet are not anchored to MSW system design choices and governance constraints that shape real-world waste outcomes [5]. Meanwhile, waste-focused sustainability reviews frequently concentrate on life-cycle tools (e.g., LCSA) and catalog impact categories across case studies, but do not integrate CE strategies, enabling conditions, and contextual moderators into an explanatory model for TBL performance [7]. Within this more specific MSWMS boundary, this study addresses that gap by developing an integrative framework that links CE strategies to (i) underlying mechanisms, (ii) enabling and constraining conditions, and (iii) environmental, social, and economic outcomes, while explicitly accounting for context-dependent variation.
Accordingly, this study conducts a systematic review of sustainable CE-based MSWMS with a focus on TBL outcomes and the pathways connecting CE strategies to environmental, social, and economic performance. The review is confined to studies directly relevant to MSWMS, including integrated system-wide analyses and major municipal waste fractions where these are examined within municipal solid-waste arrangements. We synthesize: (i) the portfolio of CE strategies examined in MSWMS (prevention, reuse, recycling, organics valorization, and residual treatment within integrated systems), (ii) enablers and barriers across governance, infrastructure, and markets, (iii) mechanisms through which strategies translate into outcomes, and (iv) the moderators that help explain variation across contexts [2, 6]. Wastewater, sewage, and sludge systems are outside the scope of this review.
The remainder of the paper details the review protocol and selection procedure, reports descriptive and thematic findings, introduces the proposed integrative framework, and concludes with implications for research design, policy mixes, and implementation priorities for sustainable circular waste systems.
2.1 Conceptual clarity and scope: From “circularity” to sustainable circular waste systems
CE has rapidly diffused into waste-management scholarship, yet its meaning remains uneven across studies, creating ambiguity about what is being implemented, measured, and compared. Kirchherr et al. [3] showed that CE is “most frequently depicted as a combination of reduce, reuse and recycle activities,” while the systemic shift implied by CE is often underemphasized. In the same vein, Korhonen et al. [4] cautioned that the “scientific and research content of the CE concept is superficial and unorganized,” implying that CE can become a bundle of loosely connected ideas unless anchored by explicit boundaries and evaluative criteria. To keep the synthesis coherent and policy-relevant, this review adopts a sustainability-first framing: CE-based waste management is treated as a socio-technical transition evaluated through TBL outcomes. In this review, the analytical boundary is restricted to MSWMS and to studies directly relevant to municipal waste-system design, operation, or governance. The scope is MSWMS, primarily non-hazardous municipal/household waste and similar commercial waste streams managed within municipal systems, covering upstream interfaces (products/consumption affecting waste generation), collection and source separation, sorting and material recovery, biological and thermal treatment pathways, and final disposal. Studies addressing broader waste domains were considered only where their evidence was clearly embedded in, or directly transferable to, municipal solid-waste arrangements; they were not intended to redefine the core scope of the review. Wastewater, sewage, and sludge systems are outside the scope. This boundary is intended to ensure that the core synthesis, descriptive patterns, and framework development remain anchored in the MSWMS-focused evidence base rather than in broader waste-system literatures.
2.2 Operational definitions: Circular economy and sustainability as analytical anchors
To minimize definitional drift, we adopt Geissdoerfer et al.’s [2] definition of CE as “a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized,” achieved by “slowing, closing, and narrowing” loops through strategies such as reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and recycling. This definition is paired with their definition of sustainability as the balanced integration of economic performance, social inclusiveness, and environmental resilience, directly motivating a TBL lens. Together, these anchors prevent “circularity” from being reduced to downstream recycling rates and ensure that “success” must be justified across environmental, social, and economic dimensions.
To explain why similar circular strategies, yield different TBL outcomes across settings, this review uses a socio-technical transitions lens, specifically the multi-level perspective (MLP), as an organizing backbone. In MSW transitions, landscape pressures (e.g., urbanization, climate/resource pressures) interact with regime structures (infrastructure lock-in, incumbent routines, regulatory capacity) and niche innovations (new separation systems, reuse platforms, EPR schemes, valorization technologies). Iyamu et al. [8] explicitly characterized MSWMS transition through the three MLP levels, “landscape pressures, regimes, and niche innovations”, supporting the use of MLP to structure intervention types, enabling conditions, and context dependence.
2.3 Circular strategies in municipal/solid waste management systems: A structured taxonomy of value-retention options
The central reason CE evidence becomes hard to integrate is that studies often mix interventions without a shared taxonomy. Reike et al. [9] observed that the CE “revival” has been “accompanied by controversies and confusions,” motivating a structured view based on resource value-retention options. Complementarily, Morseletto [10] proposed an actionable mapping lens using “10 common circular economy strategies” (e.g., recover, recycle, reuse, reduce, rethink, refuse) to scrutinize targets and avoid narrow, partial operationalization.
Translated into MSWMS, this review organizes strategies as: (i) prevention and demand reduction (e.g., packaging redesign, pricing/consumption shifts); (ii) reuse systems (refill/repair/secondhand logistics); (iii) recycling and material recovery (source separation, MRF performance, quality upgrading); (iv) organics valorization (composting, anaerobic digestion, bio-based products); and (v) residual management (controlled treatment and sanitary disposal to reduce leakage). This hierarchy supports consistent comparison across heterogeneous studies and clarifies where evidence concentrates (often recycling) versus where it remains thinner (prevention/reuse and social outcomes).
2.4 Triple-bottom-line outcomes: Indicators, trade-offs, and measurement pitfalls
A TBL lens is essential because CE interventions can generate trade-offs (e.g., higher diversion but higher household costs) and distributional effects (who benefits, who pays, who bears risk). Environmental outcomes typically include reduced emissions/pollution, resource conservation, and reduced leakage. Economic outcomes include cost-effectiveness, revenue stability, and value creation from secondary materials. Social outcomes include health and safety, inclusion, procedural fairness, and community well-being/acceptance. Haupt and Hellweg [11] highlighted that mass-based circularity indicators (e.g., recycling rates) are widely used, but “fail to cover the environmental perspective”, a key motivation for CE transitions. Moreover, CE-sustainability assessments frequently under-represent social dimensions: Elia et al. [6] concluded that “the social dimension of sustainability is currently the most neglected in Circular Economy assessment,” alongside methodological heterogeneity. These limitations justify a synthesis approach that tracks not only “how circular” systems appear, but whether circular strategies translate into demonstrable TBL outcomes.
To prevent “social” from becoming a rhetorical add-on, this review operationalizes social outcomes into codeable categories: (1) decent work and occupational health & safety (exposure, injuries, protections); (2) inclusion and livelihood security (participation of informal/vulnerable groups, income stability); (3) procedural justice and stakeholder participation (voice, transparency, accountability); and (4) community well-being and acceptance (health, nuisance, trust). Padilla-Rivera et al. [5] noted that “there has been no agreement to measure” CE transition effectiveness “particularly those that affect society,” underscoring the need for explicit social coding in CE syntheses. This framing is consistent with social-inclusion scholarship arguing that CE must expand beyond material loops: Souza Piao et al. [12] stated that “circular economy has to devote more attention to social inclusion” to fully support sustainable development.
2.5 Mechanisms and conditions: How circular economy strategies produce (or fail to produce) triple-bottom-line outcomes
This review treats the CE–TBL relationship as mechanism-based: strategies influence outcomes through identifiable pathways whose strength depends on enabling conditions. Resource efficiency and substitution. Improved separation, sorting, and quality upgrading increase secondary material usability, enabling substitution of virgin inputs and associated environmental benefits. Yet substitution and life-cycle impacts may be misrepresented when evidence relies on mass-based circularity metrics alone [2, 11]. Leakage reduction and risk control. Reliable collection, controlled treatment, and safe disposal reduce open dumping/burning and exposure pathways, linking CE transitions to public health and local environmental quality. Regime capacity (institutions, enforcement, infrastructure lock-in) shapes feasibility and effectiveness, as anticipated by MLP dynamics [8]. Circular strategies can create economic value through circular services (repair/reuse), secondary material markets, and organics valorization; however, performance is moderated by price volatility, financing, and policy credibility. Targets and instruments can steer transitions but remain partial if focused narrowly on recovery/recycling [10]. Inclusive circular transitions can improve legitimacy and continuity of recovery systems, while exclusion can undermine both social outcomes and system performance. For example, Valencia et al. [13] argued that “implementing a circular economy… can be the opportunity to include waste pickers and other informal workers” within a regenerative model, illustrating how inclusion can be a core condition for “sustainable circularity” in MSW contexts.
2.6 Context moderators and bridge to the integrative framework
The same CE strategy can produce different TBL outcomes across settings due to moderators such as governance capacity, waste composition (organics vs plastics), urban density/logistics, maturity of secondary-material markets, and labor structure (formal vs informal). A transitions lens expects heterogeneity because system change depends on aligned developments across technologies, institutions, markets, and user practices [8]. Higher-order value-retention strategies (prevention/reuse/repair) are expected to offer stronger TBL potential than recycling-only approaches because they align with CE’s loop-slowing/value-retention logic [2]. Policy mixes and targets are expected to strengthen strategy-to-mechanism links, but targets limited to recovery/recycling may fail to promote CE comprehensively [10]. Social safeguards (decent work, inclusion, procedural justice) are expected to improve transition legitimacy and implementation stability, increasing the likelihood of positive social outcomes and potentially reinforcing environmental/economic performance through higher participation [12, 13]. Finally, because mass-based circularity indicators can omit environmental impacts, impact-oriented assessment is expected to yield more reliable TBL inference and make trade-offs more visible [11].
3.1 Review design and reporting standard
This study conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) combined with an evidence-to-framework synthesis to develop an integrative model of sustainable CE–based MSWMS and their TBL outcomes. The review was designed a priori with explicit scope boundaries, eligibility rules, appraisal criteria, and synthesis logic, and it is reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement to ensure transparency and reproducibility across identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion [14].
3.2 Information source and search strategy
A single-database search was performed in Scopus using an advanced query applied to TITLE–ABS–KEY. The search string combined three concept blocks: (i) CE-related terms, (ii) MSWMS-related terms, and (iii) TBL/sustainability assessment terms, with explicit exclusions for wastewater/sewage/sludge. Results were restricted to journal sources, final publication stage, document types “article” and “review,” and English language. The Scopus query applied the temporal filter PUBYEAR > 2016 AND PUBYEAR < 2026. At the time of data extraction, however, the export included two records indexed as 2026; these records were retained in the analytical dataset. Accordingly, the reviewed corpus is reported consistently as spanning 2017–2026 throughout the revised manuscript. The full query is provided verbatim in Table A1b, and the search setup is summarized in Table A1. To complement the descriptive profiling of the evidence base, bibliometric performance indicators and science-mapping analyses were generated from the same Scopus export using Bibliometrix (Biblioshiny, R) and VOSviewer [15]. The exported fields included full records and cited references. Keyword harmonization (e.g., singular/plural, spelling variants, acronyms) was performed using a thesaurus file prior to mapping. Co-occurrence (keywords), co-citation (sources/references), and collaboration networks (countries/authors) were visualized using association-strength normalization, with minimum-occurrence thresholds reported alongside each map. These bibliometric outputs were used to describe the structure and thematic patterning of the included Scopus-indexed corpus and to inform the subsequent evidence-to-framework synthesis; they were not intended to imply exhaustive coverage of the wider field beyond the reviewed sample.
3.3 Eligibility criteria (scope and inclusion/exclusion rules)
Eligibility criteria were pre-specified to enforce a tight boundary around MSWMS and sustainability outcomes. Studies were included if they:
To preserve scope consistency, studies from broader waste domains were included only when their empirical focus, system boundary, or governance setting was clearly embedded in MSWMS; conceptually adjacent but non-municipal waste studies were not intended to form part of the core synthesis. Studies were excluded if they focused on wastewater/sewage/sludge, addressed waste domains not clearly aligned with MSWMS, were not peer-reviewed journal articles/reviews, were not in English, or were not retrievable in full text for synthesis. The complete inclusion/exclusion criteria and rationale are provided in Table A2.
3.4 Study selection process and PRISMA flow
Search results were exported from Scopus and screened in stages aligned with PRISMA 2020. As shown in Figure 1, the search identified 333 records. Prior to screening, 8 records were removed as ineligible by automation tools; no duplicates were recorded (n = 0), and no records were removed for other reasons (n = 0). The remaining 325 records proceeded to title/abstract screening, where 80 were excluded. A total of 245 reports were then sought for retrieval. Of these, 150 reports were not retrieved in usable full-text form. The remaining 95 reports were assessed for eligibility. At the eligibility stage, 3 reports were excluded due to wrong document type (not article/review), and 2 were excluded because the full text was not in English. The final included set comprised 90 studies. Report-not-retrieved and full-text exclusion categories and counts are documented in Table A3. Methodological guidance recommends explicit documentation of review decisions and exclusion rationales to reduce bias and enable auditability; therefore, reasons for exclusion were recorded using standardized categories at the retrieval and full-text eligibility stages. To maintain internal consistency, the same PRISMA category definitions and counts were applied throughout Figure 1, the main text, and the appendix tables.
3.5 Methodological quality appraisal
To avoid treating all evidence as equally reliable, methodological quality appraisal was conducted using a transparent, mixed-method–friendly rubric (Table A4) adapted to the diverse designs expected in CE–waste research (e.g., LCA-based assessments, modelling studies, case studies, and policy analyses). Criteria covered clarity of aim, boundary specification, methodological appropriateness, data transparency, robustness/validation, limitations/bias, and the substantive measurement of environmental, social, and economic outcomes. The rubric is conceptually aligned with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018, which is widely used for appraising heterogeneous evidence bases in mixed-studies reviews. Quality scores were used to weight confidence and support sensitivity checks, rather than to exclude studies mechanically (thresholding rules and usage are specified in Table A4b). This approach is consistent with contemporary review practice that treats appraisal as a tool for interpreting confidence in synthesized claims.
3.6 Data extraction and coding scheme
A standardized extraction template was developed to ensure consistent capture of constructs required for the integrative framework. Extracted data fields included: study context and scale; waste stream and system boundary; circular strategies; enabling conditions and barriers (governance, infrastructure, markets/finance, coordination/data, behavior/acceptance); mechanisms (substitution, leakage reduction, market formation/value creation, inclusion/legitimacy); and TBL outcomes (indicators and effect direction where stated). The complete extraction form (fields, operational definitions, and data types) is provided in Table A5. Qualitative and mixed evidence was coded using a structured codebook (Table A6). In particular, the social pillar was operationalized into codeable categories, decent work/OHS, inclusion and livelihoods, procedural justice/participation, and community wellbeing/acceptance, to prevent social impacts from being treated as incidental narrative (Table A7). For thematic organization and cross-study pattern identification, the coding and synthesis followed established guidance for thematic analysis as a rigorous approach to constructing meaning patterns across a dataset.
3.7 Evidence synthesis and integrative framework development
Synthesis proceeded in two linked layers:
To operationalize framework building, relationships were consolidated into propositions (P1–P8) and documented via an evidence matrix linking each relationship to supporting studies and boundary conditions (Table A9). This proposition-based, integrative approach is increasingly used in high-impact reviews to move beyond descriptive summaries and to generate testable, transferable models grounded in the evidence base.
3.8 Robustness and bias considerations
Robustness checks were pre-specified to assess whether conclusions and framework relations were sensitive to evidence quality, context, waste stream, and method family. Planned checks and reporting formats are provided in Table A10. This reflects best practice in systematic reviewing: when meta-analysis is infeasible due to heterogeneity, reviewers should still demonstrate analytic discipline through transparent sensitivity and robustness assessments. A key limitation is that the evidence base is constrained by database indexing and filter choices (e.g., journal-only and the implemented OA constraint). Where feasible, future iterations can complement database searching with structured citation chasing to broaden coverage and reduce retrieval bias; recent work has shown that transparent citation chasing can efficiently expand evidence capture beyond keyword search results.
4.1 Study identification and selection (PRISMA 2020)
As summarized in Figure 1 (PRISMA 2020 flow diagram), the database search identified 333 records. Prior to screening, 8 records were removed as ineligible by automation tools, while no duplicates were detected (n = 0) and no records were removed for other reasons (n = 0). The remaining 325 records were screened at the title/abstract level, resulting in the exclusion of 80 records that did not meet the review scope. A total of 245 reports were then sought for retrieval. Of these, 150 reports were not retrieved in usable full-text form. The remaining 95 reports were assessed for eligibility. At this stage, 3 reports were excluded due to document-type mismatch (i.e., not articles or reviews), and 2 reports were excluded because the full text was not in English. After applying all eligibility criteria, 90 studies were retained for the final synthesis.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart
4.2 Bibliometric snapshot and science mapping
To contextualize the evidence base, we conducted a compact bibliometric assessment of the 90 included Scopus-indexed studies using Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny for performance indicators (growth and sources) and VOSviewer for science mapping (keyword co-occurrence structure and temporal dynamics) [16]. This bibliometric layer is descriptive and is used to situate the SLR and inform the subsequent evidence-to-framework synthesis. Within the included corpus, the annual production trend (Figure 2) shows a low publication volume during 2017–2020 (2–4 papers/year), followed by sustained growth from 2021 onward and a marked increase in 2025 (41 papers). The smaller count in 2026 (2 papers) should be interpreted cautiously, as it likely reflects partial-year/indexing timing within the exported corpus rather than a substantive decline in publication activity. These trends are presented as descriptive features of the reviewed Scopus-indexed sample, not as exhaustive indicators of the wider field.
Figure 2. Annual scientific production of included studies
The outlet distribution indicates a concentrated publication pattern (Figure 3). Sustainability (Switzerland) is the dominant source (25 papers), followed by a long tail of journals contributing smaller numbers (typically 2–3 papers each). To complement productivity counts with impact descriptors, Table 1 reports source-level indicators (e.g., h-index, total citations, and starting year within this dataset) generated in Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny, which helps avoid interpreting volume alone as quality. These source patterns are reported to characterize the included evidence base rather than to imply field-wide source dominance beyond the reviewed sample.
Keyword co-occurrence mapping was performed in VOSviewer using an occurrence threshold of ≥ 3, yielding a network of 35 terms (Figures 4-6). The network and density views (Figures 4-5) reveal a tightly connected conceptual core anchored by “circular economy” (59 occurrences; total link strength, TLS = 172), “waste management” (42; TLS = 156), and “sustainability” (33; TLS = 113). Pairwise links further confirm strong coupling between CE ↔ waste management (link strength = 31) and CE ↔ sustainability (23), suggesting that, within the included sample, CE is predominantly framed as a sustainability-oriented transformation of waste systems rather than a stand-alone efficiency agenda.
Beyond the core, the map separates into several coherent thematic neighborhoods. One cluster emphasizes MSW and decision/policy orientation (e.g., municipal solid waste, decision making, policy making), another emphasizes assessment and impacts (e.g., environmental impact, life cycle assessment, valorization), and a third emphasizes resource recovery and related risk/economic lenses (e.g., recycling, environmental economics, risk assessment). The temporal overlay (Figure 6) indicates a more recent emphasis on SDG-aligned framing (sustainable development goals, average publication year = 2025) and waste-to-energy-related terms (average publication year ≈ 2024.7), pointing to increasing attention to policy alignment and residual-treatment pathways in recent publications within the reviewed corpus.
Figure 3. Most relevant sources by number of documents
Table 1. Source impact metrics of leading journals
|
Journal (Source) |
NP |
TC |
h-index |
g-index |
m-index |
PY_start |
|
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
25 |
772 |
12 |
25 |
1.2 |
2017 |
|
Energies |
3 |
31 |
3 |
3 |
0.5 |
2021 |
|
Heliyon |
3 |
26 |
3 |
3 |
0.6 |
2022 |
|
Recycling |
2 |
65 |
2 |
2 |
0.222 |
2018 |
|
Foods |
2 |
29 |
2 |
2 |
0.5 |
2023 |
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland) |
2 |
29 |
1 |
2 |
0.143 |
2020 |
|
Environments – MDPI |
2 |
27 |
2 |
2 |
0.667 |
2024 |
|
Frontiers in Sustainability |
2 |
19 |
2 |
2 |
0.4 |
2022 |
|
ACS Environmental Au |
1 |
243 |
1 |
1 |
0.25 |
2023 |
|
Brazilian Journal of Operations and Production Management |
1 |
12 |
1 |
1 |
0.167 |
2021 |
Figure 4. Keyword co-occurrence network visualization
Figure 5. Keyword co-occurrence density visualization
Figure 6. Keyword co-occurrence overlay visualization by average publication year
4.3 Evidence base at a glance
The review synthesizes 90 peer-reviewed journal articles and reviews captured from Scopus within the defined time window. The evidence base is heterogeneous in study setting, waste-stream focus, system boundary, and methodological approach, reflecting the multi-dimensional nature of CE transitions in waste systems. To preserve concision in the main text while ensuring full auditability, the complete study-level descriptors (authors, year, outlet, study setting, waste stream, boundary/stage, and method family) are reported in Table A11.
As shown in Figure 7, within the included corpus, organics/food waste and general/system-wide framings account for the largest shares of the evidence base, followed by plastics-focused studies. Additional studies address mixed MSW, WEEE/e-waste, construction and demolition (C&D) waste, and a small number of industrial-waste contexts. To preserve scope consistency, these conceptually adjacent cases were retained only where they informed interpretation of MSWMS and were not used to redefine the core MSWMS focus of the review [17-19]. This uneven stream coverage is analytically important: it shapes which TBL indicators are most frequently measured and where the evidence base remains thin for stream-specific social outcomes [20-23].
Figure 7. Distribution of waste-stream focus across the included studies (n = 90)
Figure 8 indicates that most studies take a multi-stage or system-wide boundary, often spanning more than one stage of the waste hierarchy. Among stage-focused studies, the evidence is concentrated in recycling/material recovery and waste-to-energy/thermal pathways, followed by reuse, with comparatively fewer studies centered on prevention/upstream measures, collection/separation, organics treatment/valorization as a primary stage focus, or landfill/final disposal. This boundary pattern matters for synthesis because system-wide studies tend to emphasize governance, infrastructure, and economic feasibility, while stage-specific studies more often report operational indicators and technology-specific environmental performance.
Figure 8. Distribution of system boundary/stage focus across the included studies (n = 90)
The method-family distribution (Figure 9) shows a mixed evidence base led by policy/institutional analyses, life cycle assessment (LCA), and decision-support/MCDA approaches, complemented by optimization/modelling studies that explore scenario trade-offs. Behavioral survey/SEM and qualitative stakeholder designs appear less frequently than policy, assessment, and decision-oriented approaches, which has implications for how robustly the social pillar is operationalized and measured across the corpus.
Figure 9. Method-family composition of the included studies (n = 90)
Taken together, these descriptive results indicate a reviewed corpus that is method-diverse and increasingly active over time, but still concentrated in system-wide or multi-stage framings, organics/food waste and general MSW applications, and selected recovery-oriented pathways. Coverage remains comparatively thinner for prevention-focused studies, landfill/disposal, and several stream-specific social-outcome analyses, patterns that motivate the subsequent quality appraisal and mechanism-based synthesis.
4.4 Methodological quality appraisal
Methodological quality appraisal was applied across the 90 included studies using the rubric reported in the Methods (Appendix A4), with appraisal used to qualify confidence in synthesized relations rather than to exclude evidence mechanically. Table 2 summarizes quality levels by method family. Overall, the evidence base is dominated by Moderate-quality studies (44/90; 48.9%), followed by High-quality (29/90; 32.2%) and Low-quality (17/90; 18.9%) studies.
Table 2. Quality appraisal summary by method family (n = 90)
|
Method Family |
N |
High |
Moderate |
Low |
High (%) |
Mean Score (0–7) |
|
Policy / institutional analysis |
22 |
6 |
14 |
2 |
27.3 |
4.77 |
|
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
16 |
9 |
6 |
1 |
56.2 |
5.44 |
|
Decision-support / Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) |
16 |
6 |
8 |
2 |
37.5 |
4.81 |
|
Optimization / Operations Research (OR) modeling |
7 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
42.9 |
5.29 |
|
Material flow analysis (MFA) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
|
Survey / Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
33.3 |
4.33 |
|
Qualitative interviews/case study |
8 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
37.5 |
4.5 |
|
Review (systematic/bibliometric) |
6 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
16.7 |
4.33 |
|
Other/unspecified |
11 |
0 |
5 |
6 |
0 |
3.55 |
|
Overall |
90 |
29 |
44 |
17 |
32.2 |
4.7 |
Quality profiles differ by method family. Within the reviewed corpus, LCA-based assessments show the highest share of High-quality studies (56.2%), reflecting more frequent reporting of methodological structure and robustness elements. Optimization/OR modelling and decision-support/MCDA studies also exhibit comparatively higher shares of High-quality papers (42.9% and 37.5%, respectively), while policy/institutional analyses are more commonly appraised as Moderate (63.6%) with a smaller High-quality share (27.3%). Review papers are largely Moderate, consistent with their reliance on reporting and synthesis discipline rather than primary empirical validation.
Across the corpus, three recurring appraisal weaknesses affect confidence in the synthesized evidence. First, explicit boundary specification is unevenly reported relative to the diversity of designs, which reduces comparability across studies. Second, robustness/validation reporting appears less consistently than core results reporting, limiting confidence in magnitude claims when studies rely on scenario assumptions [24, 25]. Third, while limitations/bias are frequently acknowledged, data transparency varies, particularly in qualitative/policy and mixed-method contributions [26-29]. These patterns are therefore used to qualify the interpretation of later mechanism-based findings and to motivate the robustness/sensitivity checks reported below, rather than to invalidate lower-scoring studies mechanically.
4.5 Coverage of circular economy strategies in municipal/solid waste management systems
Table 3 summarizes how the included studies operationalize CE action in MSWMS and how evidence coverage is distributed across strategy clusters. Two complementary coverage indicators are reported: (i) primary focus, capturing the dominant strategy emphasis within each study, and (ii) mentioned across studies, capturing strategies that are discussed or evaluated as part of broader systems framing (multi-label). This distinction is important because many papers reference multiple CE options while empirically evaluating only one core pathway.
Across the corpus, the evidence base is heavily concentrated in recycling/material recovery as the primary focus (40 studies; 44.4%), consistent with the field’s dominant orientation toward closing material loops through collection, sorting, and secondary-material production. Recycling/material recovery is also the most widely discussed strategy overall (59 studies; 65.6%), indicating that it functions as the conceptual anchor of CE–waste scholarship even when not the main evaluation target. Residual management (e.g., waste-to-energy and other controlled residual pathways) forms the second-largest primary emphasis (20 studies; 22.2%) and is discussed in 38 studies (42.2%), suggesting that residual handling remains a prominent, though more contested, component of CE-oriented MSW transitions [30-32].
Table 3. Circular economy strategy taxonomy and evidence coverage across included studies (n = 90)
|
CE Strategy Cluster |
Operational Scope (Summary) |
Representative Interventions (Examples) |
Primary Focus, n (%) |
Mentioned Across Studies, n (%) |
|
Prevention |
Upstream waste avoidance and design/policy measures that reduce waste generation and improve circularity before materials enter the waste stream. |
Source reduction; eco-design/design for disassembly; green/circular procurement; pay as you throw (PAYT) strategy; extended producer responsibility (EPR) / product stewardship. |
7 (7.8%) |
19 (21.1%) |
|
Reuse |
Strategies that extend product/service life by maintaining products in use with minimal reprocessing. |
Repair/refurbishment; remanufacturing; reuse centers; deposit–return systems; sharing/rental models. |
9 (10.0%) |
28 (31.1%) |
|
Recycling/Material recovery |
Collection, separation, and processing that returns materials to productive use as secondary resources. |
Source separation; sorting/sorting / materials recovery facility (MRF); mechanical (and, where relevant, chemical) recycling; material recovery from mixed material recovery from mixed municipal solid waste (MSW). |
40 (44.4%) |
59 (65.6%) |
|
Organics valorization |
Valorization pathways for the organic fraction of MSW to generate products and energy while closing nutrient/carbon loops. |
Composting; anaerobic digestion/biogas; digestate/biofertilizer use; organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) management. |
13 (14.4%) |
25 (27.8%) |
|
Residual management |
Management of residual waste fractions not feasibly prevented/reused/recycled, prioritizing controlled treatment and recovery where applicable. |
Waste-to-energy/thermal treatment; Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) / co-processing; controlled landfill with gas capture; residual handling and risk control. |
20 (22.2%) |
38 (42.2%) |
In contrast, upstream strategies are comparatively less represented as focal evaluations. Organics valorization appears as the primary strategy in 13 studies (14.4%) and is mentioned in 25 studies (27.8%), reflecting the importance of managing the organic fraction through composting and anaerobic digestion but also indicating that organics is often embedded within broader system narratives rather than evaluated as a stand-alone CE lever. Reuse is the primary focus in only 9 studies (10.0%), despite being mentioned in 28 studies (31.1%), implying that reuse is frequently acknowledged as a priority but is less often implemented and assessed through rigorous outcome measurement. Prevention, arguably the highest-value CE strategy in the waste hierarchy, shows the lowest primary coverage (7 studies; 7.8%) and is mentioned in 19 studies (21.1%), underscoring a persistent evidence gap at the upstream end of MSWMS [28, 33, 34].
A brief linkage to the descriptive coding further indicates that recycling-focused studies most often align with material recovery stages and are frequently associated with plastics-oriented applications, whereas organics valorization studies cluster around OFMSW contexts and treatment/valorization stages; residual-management studies are commonly tied to thermal/WtE pathways. These distributional patterns provide the empirical basis for later sections that trace strategy → mechanisms → TBL outcomes and specify where evidence is currently strongest versus underdeveloped.
4.6 Enablers and barriers for circular economy implementation
This subsection synthesizes the enabling conditions and barriers reported across the included studies, coded from full texts into five implementation domains: governance, infrastructure, markets/finance, coordination/data, and behavior/acceptance. To keep the main Results concise while maintaining transparency, the ranked theme list with operational definitions and counts is provided in Table A12.
Cross-cutting pattern. Across domains, the most frequently reported themes are not “single-sided”: they are often described as enablers were present and functional, but as constraints where weak or absent (hence “mixed” polarity in Table A12). This is particularly evident for financing, policy frameworks, collection systems, and public engagement, areas where studies repeatedly stress that implementation success depends on the strength and coherence of the supporting system rather than on the technical viability of a single CE option [35, 36].
Governance conditions (rules, capacity, enforcement). Governance-related factors are pervasive. A policy/regulatory framework is referenced in 84 studies, typically as a necessary foundation for CE–MSW reforms, but frequently accompanied by implementation gaps (mixed framing). Enforcement and compliance are highlighted in 52 studies, reflecting recurrent concerns about weak enforcement capacity, limited monitoring, and persistent illegal dumping. EPR/producer responsibility appears less frequently (20 studies), indicating that upstream responsibility mechanisms remain less embedded in the MSWMS-focused evidence base than downstream recovery strategies, consistent with the lower primary coverage of prevention-oriented CE strategies reported earlier [8, 13].
Infrastructure conditions (collection, sorting, treatment capacity). Infrastructure emerges as a dominant operational determinant. Collection coverage and logistics are discussed in 81 studies, often linking service coverage, routing capacity, and collection reliability to downstream material quality and system performance. Treatment capacity (composting/AD/WtE and related infrastructure) is discussed in 68 studies, reflecting the recurring emphasis on adequate throughput capacity and stable operational performance to avoid leakage back to disposal. Source separation and sorting capacity is referenced in 51 studies, commonly tied to contamination rates, MRF availability, and the feasibility of high-quality recycle streams [37-39].
Markets and finance (viability, incentives, end-markets). The most ubiquitous economic constraint is financing and investment feasibility, discussed in 86 studies, capturing capital/operational cost burdens, cost recovery limitations, and investment risk. Economic incentives and instruments (fees, subsidies, PAYT, fiscal tools) appear in 57 studies and are frequently framed as enabling instruments when aligned with behavioral and market realities [40-42]. However, even where incentives exist, market demand and offtake for recycles remains a recurrent fragility (30 studies), pointing to price volatility and end-market uncertainty as persistent bottlenecks in closing loops [17, 27, 30, 43].
Coordination/data (systems intelligence and collaboration). Evidence repeatedly underscores that CE implementation requires information and coordinated action [25, 44]. Data availability and monitoring systems are referenced in 68 studies, typically emphasizing the need for reliable waste-flow data, tracking/traceability, and monitoring to support planning and performance management [45]. Stakeholder collaboration and partnerships are discussed in 54 studies, including public–private arrangements and multi-stakeholder governance, often positioned as enabling conditions for scaling collection, sorting, and recovery markets [8, 32].
Behavior and acceptance (participation, legitimacy). Behavioral and social conditions are consistently present in the corpus. Public awareness and education appear in 75 studies, and participation/sorting behavior in 71 studies, reflecting widespread recognition that source separation and program adherence are decisive for material quality and system outcomes [33]. Social acceptance/NIMBY is less frequently explicit (26 studies) but remains salient for siting and operating treatment facilities, indicating that legitimacy and procedural fairness can become binding constraints even when technical and economic conditions are favorable [8, 13].
4.7 Triple-bottom-line outcomes and indicator patterns
Across the 90 included studies, TBL outcome reporting is stronger for environmental and economic dimensions than for the social pillar. Based on full-text indicator coding, economic outcomes are reported in 72 studies (80.0%) and environmental outcomes in 69 studies (76.7%), while social outcomes appear in 52 studies (57.8%). Only 34 studies (37.8%) explicitly cover all three pillars (Econ–Env–Soc), whereas 21 studies (23.3%) focus on Econ–Env only. Social-only evidence is rare (1 study; 1.1%), and a small subset remains not specified (3 studies; 3.3%), underscoring that “TBL” is often invoked even when operationalization is partial [46, 47].
Indicator use is also concentrated in a narrow set of metrics. The most frequently reported categories are Cost/efficiency (54 studies; 60.0%) and Revenue/value creation (48; 53.3%) for the economic pillar, and Energy use/production (49; 54.4%) plus GHG/Climate (32; 35.6%) for the environmental pillar. Environmental impacts are commonly expressed through process or scenario metrics (e.g., net energy recovery, emission reductions, or LCA-derived impact categories), while economic assessments frequently rely on CAPEX/OPEX, unit costs (e.g., cost per ton), and financial feasibility outputs. Beyond these “core” indicators, Pollution/leakage appears in 26 studies (28.9%), often reflecting concerns about open dumping, uncontrolled emissions, and local contamination risks.
The social pillar shows the greatest fragmentation in both indicator choice and measurement depth. The most common social category is OHS/health & safety (33 studies; 36.7%), but it is frequently operationalized via risk proxies or descriptive assessments rather than standardized, comparable metrics. Other social indicators are much less frequent: Wellbeing/acceptance (15; 16.7%), Inclusion/livelihoods (14; 15.6%), and Justice/participation (9; 10.0%). Employment outcomes are explicitly quantified in only 7 studies (7.8%). Overall, the pattern suggests that while social impacts are often discussed, they are less consistently measured, limiting cross-study comparability and weakening inference about social trade-offs relative to environmental and economic gains. A complete taxonomy of indicator categories and typical operationalizations is provided in Table A13.
4.8 Mechanism-based synthesis
This subsection consolidates the integrative, mechanism-based logic emerging from the 90 included studies by tracing how CE strategies in MSWMS are associated with TBL outcomes through a limited set of repeatable causal mechanisms. synthesis organizes evidence around four mechanisms that recur across study designs and settings: (i) substitution, (ii) leakage reduction, (iii) market formation/value creation, and (iv) inclusion/legitimacy. The mechanism evidence matrix (counts, dominant strategy linkages, pillar coverage, and quality distribution) is provided in Table A10, while the aggregated flow structure is visualized in Figure 10.
Within the reviewed corpus, market formation/value creation is the most frequently evidenced mechanism (60/90 studies; 66.7%). Here, CE strategies are linked to TBL effects by converting “waste” into tradable inputs (secondary materials, energy, compost/digestate), strengthening end-markets (offtake stability, price signals), and enabling business-model viability. The evidence links this mechanism most strongly to recycling/material recovery and residual management as primary strategy foci (Table A14). Outcome coverage under this mechanism is consistently broad: within studies evidencing market formation, economic outcomes are near-universal (e.g., cost efficiency, revenues, feasibility), while environmental outcomes (e.g., reduced emissions and resource savings) are typically reported in parallel, and social outcomes appear when market formation is coupled with governance or inclusion design (e.g., labor conditions, participation, affordability). Mechanistically, economic gains arise through cost recovery (lower net system costs, higher value capture) and through risk reduction (greater predictability for investment and operations). Environmental gains often follow when market formation increases recovery rates and displaces virgin production, but the direction and magnitude depend on boundary choices and the extent to which market demand is stable rather than speculative [48].
Figure 10. Strategy → mechanism → TBL outcome flow
Leakage reduction is the second most prevalent mechanism (52/90; 57.8%), and it captures the system’s capacity to reduce losses of materials and externalities to the environment (open dumping, uncontrolled disposal, littering, unmanaged organics, and diffuse emissions). This mechanism is especially prominent in studies emphasizing recycling/material recovery and residual management, where improved collection coverage, source separation, controlled treatment, and disposal control reduce “leakage pathways” and improve environmental performance. In the mapped evidence, leakage reduction is strongly associated with environmental outcomes (e.g., diversion, reduced local pollution and climate-relevant emissions) and is frequently paired with economic outcomes through avoided costs (clean-up, health risks, landfill expansion) and improved operational efficiency. Social outcomes also appear frequently under leakage reduction, but typically as co-benefits (reduced nuisance impacts, improved community conditions) rather than as systematically measured endpoints, an imbalance that echoes the broader indicator patterns reported earlier [49].
Inclusion/legitimacy appears in 47/90 studies (52.2%) and functions as the “social-operational” mechanism that stabilizes implementation: strategies appear more likely to translate into sustained performance when participation is credible, benefits are perceived as fair, and institutions can maintain social license. Evidence for this mechanism is visible where CE strategies require household separation behavior, where siting and operation of facilities raise acceptance concerns, and where informal-sector integration shapes both material recovery performance and equity outcomes. The mapped evidence indicates that inclusion/legitimacy is commonly co-present with both market-formation and leakage-reduction logics (Figure 10), which is consistent with the idea that participation and legitimacy are not “add-ons” but operational prerequisites for high-performing recovery systems. When inclusion is designed explicitly (e.g., stakeholder engagement, fair role allocation, improved working conditions), social outcomes are more likely to be measured and reported; when it is not, social impacts are often noted qualitatively, with weaker comparability across studies.
Substitution is less frequently coded as an explicit mechanism (24/90; 26.7%), but it is conceptually central: environmental and economic benefits often depend on whether recovered outputs meaningfully displace virgin materials and conventional energy. Substitution is most visible in studies where LCA-type logic or scenario modelling makes displacement assumptions explicit. In such studies, substitution tends to produce aligned TBL gains (lower emissions, reduced resource depletion, improved cost performance when markets exist), but it is also where results are most sensitive to modelling choices (e.g., substitution ratios, energy mix, contamination and yields). This explains why substitution appears less often as an explicit narrative mechanism in non-assessment papers even when it implicitly underpins CE rationale.
Two synthesis implications follow. First, across the included studies, a recurrent pathway involves recovery-oriented strategies activating market formation and leakage reduction, with these patterns appearing more durable where inclusion/legitimacy conditions are met (Figure 10). Second, where studies report tensions among TBL outcomes, the tension often arises between mechanisms rather than within one mechanism; for example, market formation (economic viability) without inclusion (legitimacy) can trigger resistance, while leakage reduction without market formation can create cost burdens that undermine continuity. These mechanism linkages provide the backbone for the integrative framework and the propositions developed in the next subsection and discussion.
4.9 Contextual moderators (Multi-Level Perspective lens)
An MLP-informed reading of the evidence shows that regime-level conditions are the most frequently reported moderators of circular MSWMS performance (Figure 11, Table A15). The most frequently tagged moderators are financing & cost-recovery conditions (n = 85), infrastructure readiness (collection–sorting–treatment) (n = 79), and policy stability & enforcement strength (n = 78), each reported with a largely contingent (mixed) direction, enabling when robust, but constraining when fragmented, underfunded, or weakly enforced. Two further regime moderators appear consistently: data availability & monitoring/traceability (n = 66) and governance capacity & institutional coordination (n = 61), both often discussed as prerequisites for scaling and for avoiding performance slippage (e.g., leakage, contamination, or cost overruns). Beyond regime conditions, a niche-level moderator, technology maturity & operational reliability (n = 65), is frequently referenced in relation to treatment and recovery performance, while landscape-level pressures are less often operationalized explicitly, even though participation norms & acceptance are repeatedly cited (n = 51) and broad external pressures (e.g., climate targets, commodity price dynamics, crises) appear in a smaller subset (n = 30).
Figure 11. Key contextual moderators and direction of influence (Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) lens; n = 90)
Mechanistically, these moderators shape outcomes by selectively amplifying, or throttling, the four recurrent mechanisms mapped in this review. Across most moderator categories, the strongest co-occurrence is with market formation/value creation and leakage reduction (Table A15), indicating that system performance depends not only on technical options, but on whether end-markets, cost recovery, and operational capacity sustain recovery pathways while reducing uncontrolled disposal. Financing, market maturity, and data systems mainly condition market formation/value creation, which in turn most directly affects economic viability and the durability of recovery chains; infrastructure readiness and enforcement strength most directly condition leakage reduction, with downstream sensitivity in environmental outcomes (diversion, emissions, local impacts) and indirect effects on system costs [50, 51]. By contrast, inclusion/legitimacy becomes the decisive mechanism where participation, acceptance, and informal-sector structure are salient (e.g., source separation adherence, facility siting, workforce conditions): when inclusion is designed into governance and service models, social benefits and program continuity are more likely; when not, resistance and non-compliance weaken both leakage reduction and market formation. Taken together, these moderators explain why nominally similar CE strategies can yield different TBL patterns across settings and justify making “context” explicit in the integrative propositions [41].
4.10 Integrative framework and propositions
Figure 12 presents the final integrative framework developed from the evidence-to-framework synthesis. The model is structured as a transferable, evidence-informed explanatory chain in which CE strategy bundles in MSWMS are linked to outcomes through a limited set of repeatable mechanisms, conditional on implementation domains and contextual moderators. In the framework, strategies (prevention, reuse, recycling/material recovery, organics valorization, and residual management) do not “produce” TBL outcomes directly; rather, they operate through enabling conditions and barriers (governance, infrastructure, markets/finance, coordination/data, and behavior/acceptance) that activate, or weaken, four evidence-based mechanisms: substitution, leakage reduction, market formation/value creation, and inclusion/legitimacy. Outcomes are expressed in the environmental, economic, and social pillars, with the model explicitly allowing non-mutually exclusive effects (a single study or intervention can activate multiple mechanisms and outcomes).
Figure 12. Integrative framework linking CE strategies, enabling conditions, mechanisms, and their TBL outcomes
A core implication is that performance is system-dependent: recovery-oriented strategies dominate the evidence base, but their realized benefits hinge on the integrity of upstream and enabling subsystems. For example, recycling/material recovery is most often associated with improved environmental performance when it reduces leakage and/or produces credible substitution (secondary materials displacing virgin production), but this relationship is bounded by collection coverage, separation/sorting quality, and stable end-markets [52]. Similarly, organics valorization appears more likely to yield joint environmental–economic gains when treatment capacity, feedstock quality, and offtake for compost/digestate/biogas are in place [49]. Residual-management pathways appear to contribute primarily through leakage reduction, but their viability is sensitive to policy stability, financing, technology reliability, and local legitimacy. Across strategies, market formation/value creation frequently mediates economic outcomes through cost recovery and market stabilization; inclusion/legitimacy appears especially important where participation, informal-sector dynamics, and siting acceptance determine whether systems function as designed [53].
The framework embeds an explicit MLP moderator layer to explain heterogeneity. Regime-level conditions (policy/enforcement, finance/cost recovery, infrastructure readiness, market maturity, data systems, and governance coordination) are the most frequently identified contextual conditions influencing whether strategies can scale and sustain leakage reduction and market formation. Niche-level factors (technology maturity and operational reliability) are pivotal for treatment-intensive pathways. Landscape-level pressures (participation norms/acceptance and external shocks) shape legitimacy and adoption dynamics and can amplify or undermine system performance. Based on these mappings, eight propositions (P1–P8) are specified as empirically testable relationships with stated boundary conditions and support levels reported in Table A16. These support levels are intended to summarize relative support within the reviewed corpus, rather than to imply definitive causal confirmation. Together, Figure 12 and the proposition set move the review beyond descriptive cataloguing by providing a transferable model that can be operationalized in future empirical work (e.g., comparative case designs, causal models, or configuration-based analyses) to test when and why CE strategies are more likely to be associated with TBL outcomes in MSWMS [23, 35].
4.11 Robustness and evidence gaps
Sensitivity checks indicate that the main synthesis signals are largely robust to reasonable restrictions of the evidence base (Table A17). First, the dominance of recovery-oriented strategies (especially recycling/material recovery) persists when restricting the dataset to higher-quality studies, suggesting that the headline mapping is not driven by low-quality outliers. Second, the same leading mechanism, market formation/value creation, remains most prevalent across quality subsets and stream-typed subsets, reinforcing the interpretation that economic viability (cost recovery, offtake stability, value capture) is a cross-cutting driver of CE performance in MSWMS. Third, the most frequently reported contextual constraint/enabler continues to be financing & cost-recovery conditions, indicating that fiscal design and sustained funding are consistently treated as binding regardless of study type.
Two sensitivities are substantive and should be treated as informative rather than problematic. (i) In high-quality-only subsets, the relative balance across pillars becomes less skewed, implying that stronger designs tend to operationalize a broader outcome set. (ii) In stream-focused subsets the strategy mix shifts in predictable directions (e.g., plastics- vs organics-dominant), confirming that conclusions about “which strategy dominates” should be read as system-wide evidence-weighted rather than stream-invariant.
Evidence gaps remain concentrated in three areas (Table A18):
This PRISMA-aligned systematic review synthesizes 90 Scopus-indexed studies to explain how CE strategies in MSWMS are associated with TBL outcomes. The key contribution is the integrative, evidence-informed framework that moves beyond listing strategies by specifying (i) implementation domains (governance, infrastructure, markets/finance, coordination/data, behavior/acceptance), (ii) four recurring mechanisms (substitution, leakage reduction, market formation/value creation, inclusion/legitimacy), and (iii) contextual moderators using an MLP lens to explain heterogeneity across settings [54]. In other words, CE strategies do not “deliver sustainability” automatically; they appear more likely to do so when domain conditions activate the relevant mechanisms. The results align with the broader CE literature in two ways. First, CE is commonly framed around reduce–reuse–recycle and system-level loop closure [3], and the evidence base in MSWMS remains strongly concentrated on downstream recovery pathways rather than upstream prevention/reuse [23, 30, 41, 42]. Second, the persistent under-measurement of social outcomes mirrors the conceptual critique that CE definitions and applications often privilege economic and environmental aims while treating social equity as secondary [2, 3]. Our synthesis adds specificity for MSWMS: social performance is not merely “missing data,” but in the reviewed corpus frequently appears to hinge on whether inclusion/legitimacy is designed into service models and governance arrangements [55-57].
The proposition set helps explain why similar interventions can yield different outcomes. Recovery-focused strategies most consistently operate through leakage reduction and substitution, and are more often associated with environmental improvements when collection–sorting–treatment chains are reliable (P1–P3). Economic performance is repeatedly mediated by market formation/value creation (P4): without stable offtake and cost-recovery instruments, recovery can become financially fragile and prone to regression. Where participation, siting, and labor conditions matter, inclusion/legitimacy appears especially important (P5). This is consistent with evidence that integrating informal recycling can improve system performance and livelihoods but requires deliberate policy design to manage trade-offs in working conditions and governance. Finally, moderators mapped with the MLP lens show that regime conditions (finance, enforcement, infrastructure, data systems, coordination) are the most frequently identified constraints and enabling conditions, while niche factors (technology maturity/reliability) are pivotal for treatment-intensive options (P6–P8) [54, 58].
A practical implication is sequencing. Cities should prioritize “system enablers” before scaling technical options: (1) secure financing and cost recovery and clarify mandates; (2) upgrade collection and sorting infrastructure and performance monitoring; (3) develop end-markets/offtake and procurement standards for recovered outputs; and (4) institutionalize inclusion and legitimacy via stakeholder participation, grievance handling, and fair integration of informal workers where relevant. This sequencing is suggested by the mechanism-based patterns observed in the reviewed corpus: without finance and data, market formation and leakage reduction are unstable; without legitimacy, participation and compliance collapse, undermining both environmental and economic gains.
Table A18 indicates four priorities: (i) stronger causal designs and transparent boundary assumptions (especially for prevention/reuse impacts), (ii) standardized and explicit operationalization of social indicators (OHS, livelihoods, justice/participation), (iii) comparative studies that treat moderators as measurable conditions rather than narrative context, and (iv) mixed-method syntheses that integrate quantitative assessments with governance and behavior evidence, supported by rigorous appraisal for heterogeneous designs [59, 60]. Taken together, these priorities reinforce that the proposed framework and propositions should be read as a transferable, evidence-informed basis for future testing rather than as definitive, field-wide confirmation.
6.1 Limitations
This review followed a transparent systematic approach and PRISMA-aligned reporting, yet several limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the evidence maps, mechanism synthesis, and propositions. The evidence base was built from a single bibliographic database (Scopus) and restricted to English-language journal articles and reviews within the specified time window. While Scopus provides broad coverage, any single-database strategy risks indexing bias (field- and region-specific under coverage) and may under-represent practice-oriented or locally published work that is influential in MSWMS policy implementation. Similarly, the journal-only filter likely reduces noise but may exclude technically relevant grey literature (e.g., municipal reports, feasibility studies, and practitioner evaluations), which can be important for implementation domains such as financing, operations, and enforcement.
Although screening and eligibility were conducted systematically, full-text accessibility can introduce bias if certain regions, publishers, or subfields are less accessible. Where full texts cannot be retrieved, the synthesis may over-weight more accessible outlets and topics, which can distort the apparent distribution of strategies, methods, and outcomes. The included studies vary widely in design (assessment modelling, case studies, surveys/behavioral research, policy analyses) and in outcome operationalization. As a result, meta-analysis is not feasible, and the synthesis necessarily emphasizes directional and mechanism-based patterns rather than pooled effect sizes. This is a structural limitation of many CE–waste literatures, where inconsistent functional units, system boundaries, and substitution assumptions complicate direct comparison across contexts. Consequently, findings should be read as evidence-weighted relationships rather than universal effect magnitudes.
Quality appraisal was conducted to avoid treating all evidence as equally reliable, using a mixed-studies-friendly rubric conceptually aligned with MMAT. However, any appraisal involves judgement, and “quality” can manifest differently across method families (e.g., robustness/validation in modelling vs. credibility/transferability in qualitative work). To minimize exclusion bias, appraisal was used to inform support assessments and sensitivity checks rather than to remove studies mechanically, yet the support levels assigned to the propositions remain contingent on how methodological robustness is operationalized within the reviewed corpus. The evidence-to-framework synthesis relies on structured coding. Even with a codebook and standardized fields, there is unavoidable interpretive risk when translating heterogeneous narratives into common constructs (strategies, mechanisms, moderators). In particular, the social pillar suffers from definitional and measurement ambiguity in CE applications, meaning that “social outcomes” are not always comparable across studies. Thus, pillar coverage should be interpreted as explicit operationalization frequency, not as definitive absence of social impacts in practice.
Science mapping outputs depend on choices regarding field selection (author keywords vs. Keywords Plus), normalization, thresholds, and clustering parameters. Although the review used established tools, co-occurrence networks and overlays can be sensitive to preprocessing decisions (e.g., synonym unification, stemming, and minimum occurrence thresholds). Therefore, bibliometric visualizations should be treated as descriptive heuristics that complement, rather than substitute for, full-text synthesis. The integrative framework and propositions (P1–P8) are designed to be transferable, but they remain proposition-based and should be regarded as evidence-informed hypotheses grounded in the included sample, not as validated causal laws. Contextual moderators were mapped with an MLP lens, yet the literature itself often reports context narratively rather than as measurable parameters. This limits stronger inference about moderator effect sizes and interaction structures.
6.2 Future research directions
The evidence gaps and robustness patterns motivate a focused research agenda that strengthens causal inference, improves indicator comparability, and tests boundary conditions explicitly.
This PRISMA-aligned systematic review synthesized 90 Scopus-indexed studies on sustainable CE–based MSWMS to explain how CE strategies are associated with TBL outcomes. The review shows that the evidence base remains strongly concentrated on downstream recovery pathways, particularly recycling/material recovery, organics valorization, and residual management, while upstream strategies (prevention and reuse) are comparatively underrepresented. Across the literature, environmental and economic outcomes are more frequently operationalized than social outcomes, indicating a persistent measurement imbalance that limits claims about equity and wellbeing in CE transitions. The review’s central contribution is an integrative, mechanism-based framework that clarifies why similar CE interventions may be associated with heterogeneous outcomes across contexts. Rather than assuming direct effects from strategies to sustainability, the synthesis identifies four recurring mechanisms, substitution, leakage reduction, market formation/value creation, and inclusion/legitimacy, that mediate outcomes and define boundary conditions for success. Results indicate that market formation/value creation and leakage reduction are the most frequently evidenced pathways within the reviewed corpus, while inclusion/legitimacy appears especially important where participation, informal-sector dynamics, and social acceptance shape implementation durability. These findings reinforce that CE performance is system-dependent and contingent on implementation domains (governance, infrastructure, markets/finance, coordination/data, and behavior/acceptance) and on contextual moderators consistent with a MLP.
From a practical standpoint, the findings suggest that cities should prioritize enabling conditions before scaling technical options. Financing and cost-recovery design, adequate collection and sorting infrastructure, reliable monitoring and data systems, and stable end-markets for recovered outputs are repeatedly treated as key enabling or constraining conditions. In parallel, policy packages should institutionalize legitimacy and inclusion, through stakeholder participation, procedural fairness, and context-appropriate integration of informal actors, to prevent compliance failures and resistance that can undermine both leakage reduction and market formation. Finally, the review advances an empirically testable agenda through propositions (P1–P8) that specify how strategies, mechanisms, and moderators interact. Future research should (i) strengthen evidence on prevention and reuse with causal designs and credible counterfactuals, (ii) standardize TBL operationalization, especially social indicators such as OHS, livelihoods, and justice, and (iii) test moderator-explicit configurations across cities to identify which combinations of governance, finance, infrastructure, and market conditions reliably deliver TBL gains. By making mechanisms and boundary conditions more explicit, this review offers a transferable, evidence-informed foundation for future work on designing, evaluating, and scaling CE-based MSWMS reforms that are more likely to be environmentally effective, economically viable, and socially legitimate.
Table A1. Search protocol and screening summary
|
Item |
Value |
|
Database |
Scopus |
|
Search field |
Title-Abstract-Keywords (TITLE-ABS-KEY) |
|
Time window (query) |
2017-2026 analytical corpus; query used PUBYEAR > 2016 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 |
|
Source type |
Journals only (SRCTYPE = j) |
|
Open Access filter |
Publisher full gold (OA = publisherfullgold) |
|
Publication stage |
Final (PUBSTAGE = final) |
|
Document types |
Article and Review (DOCTYPE = ar OR re) |
|
Language |
English |
|
Records identified (databases) |
n = 333 |
|
Records removed before screening - duplicates |
n = 0 |
|
Records removed before screening - ineligible by automation |
n = 8 |
|
Records screened |
n = 325 |
|
Records excluded (title/abstract) |
n = 80 |
|
Reports sought for retrieval |
n = 245 |
|
Reports not retrieved |
n = 150 |
|
Reports assessed for eligibility |
n = 95 |
|
Reports excluded (full-text eligibility) |
n = 5 |
|
Studies included in review |
n = 90 |
|
Note on year alignment |
At the time of data extraction, the Scopus export included 2 records indexed as Year = 2026. These records were retained in the analytical dataset; accordingly, the reviewed corpus is reported consistently as spanning 2017-2026 in the revised manuscript. |
Table A1b. Scopus search string
|
Source |
Search String (Verbatim) |
|
Scopus |
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( "circular econom*" OR circularit* ) AND ( "waste management" OR "municipal solid waste" OR "solid waste" OR MSW ) AND ( "triple bottom line" OR TBL OR ( environment* W/3 social W/3 economic ) ) AND ( indicator* OR metric* OR performance OR impact* OR assessment OR evaluat* ) ) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY ( wastewater OR sewage OR sludge ) AND PUBYEAR > 2016 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SRCTYPE , "j" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( OA , "publisherfullgold" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( PUBSTAGE , "final" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , "ar" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , "re" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , "English" ) ) |
Table A2. Eligibility criteria
|
Criteria |
Inclusion |
Exclusion |
Rationale/Notes |
|
Year |
2017-2026 analytical corpus |
Before 2017 |
The Scopus query used PUBYEAR > 2016 AND PUBYEAR < 2026; at data extraction, two records indexed as 2026 were retrieved and retained. The revised manuscript therefore reports the corpus consistently as spanning 2017-2026. |
|
Document type |
Article and Review |
Conference papers/proceedings, editorials/notes, books, book chapters, other non-peer-reviewed items |
|
|
Source type |
Journals |
Books, trade publications, book series, conference proceedings |
|
|
Publication stage |
Final |
Article in press |
|
|
Language |
English |
Non-English |
|
|
Full text for synthesis |
Full text retrievable in usable form |
Not retrieved in usable full-text form |
Applied at the retrieval stage prior to full-text eligibility assessment. |
Table A3. Exclusion reasons
|
PRISMA Stage |
Exclusion Reason |
Operational Definition |
Count |
|
Retrieval stage |
Reports not retrieved |
Full text could not be accessed/retrieved in usable form for analysis. |
150 |
|
Full-text eligibility stage |
Reason 1. Wrong document type (not article/review) |
Full text was retrieved, but the document type did not meet the review protocol. |
3 |
|
Full-text eligibility stage |
Reason 2. Non-English article |
Full text not in English. |
2 |
|
Total excluded at full-text eligibility |
5 |
Table A4. Quality appraisal rubric
|
Criterion |
What to Assess |
Scoring Guide (0/1/2) |
|
Clear aim and research question(s) |
Study states explicit aim and/or research questions aligned with methods and results. |
0 = unclear/absent; 1 = partially stated; 2 = clearly stated and consistent |
|
Context and system boundary clarity |
Defines waste stream (MSW/solid waste), system boundary (collection-sorting-treatment-disposal), and context. |
0 = unclear; 1 = partially defined; 2 = clearly defined |
|
Method appropriateness |
Design fits the research aim (e.g., LCA/LCSA for impacts; case study for governance; modelling for scenarios). |
0 = misaligned; 1 = partially aligned; 2 = well aligned |
|
Data transparency and reproducibility |
Data sources, assumptions, and key parameters are reported sufficiently for replication/audit. |
0 = poor; 1 = partial; 2 = transparent |
|
Validity/robustness |
Sensitivity analysis, validation, triangulation, or robustness checks are reported where relevant. |
0 = none; 1 = limited; 2 = adequate |
|
Bias and limitations |
Explicit discussion of limitations and potential biases (data, scope, assumptions). |
0 = absent; 1 = limited; 2 = clear and appropriate |
|
Environmental outcome measurement quality |
Environmental indicators are appropriate (e.g., GHG, energy, pollution) and methods are explained. |
0 = weak/unclear; 1 = partial; 2 = strong |
|
Social outcome measurement quality |
Social outcomes are measured/discussed beyond superficial mention (e.g., OHS, inclusion, justice). |
0 = absent; 1 = limited; 2 = substantive |
|
Economic outcome measurement quality |
Economic outcomes are measured/discussed (costs, value creation, jobs, financing) with clarity. |
0 = absent; 1 = limited; 2 = substantive |
|
Conclusion plausibility |
Conclusions follow logically from evidence and acknowledge uncertainty/context-dependence. |
0 = weak; 1 = moderate; 2 = strong |
Table A4b. Quality scoring rules
|
Item |
Specification |
|
Total score calculation |
Sum item scores; maximum = 20. |
|
Quality tier (recommended) |
High ≥ 16; Medium 12-15; Low ≤ 11. |
|
Use of quality scores |
Use for confidence weighting and sensitivity checks; do not exclude mechanically unless protocol specifies |
Table A5. Data extraction template
|
Field Group |
Field |
Operational Definition |
Data Type |
|
Bibliographic |
ID |
Unique study identifier (S1-S90). |
Text |
|
Bibliographic |
Authors; Year; Title; Source title; DOI |
Standard reference fields exported from Scopus. |
Text |
|
Context |
Country/region; income setting (optional) |
Study setting and geographic coverage. |
Text |
|
Context |
Scale |
City/municipal, regional, national, facility/system. |
Categorical |
|
Waste scope |
Waste stream |
MSW/mixed solid waste/plastics/organics/other solid waste within MSWMS. |
Categorical (multi-label) |
|
Waste scope |
System boundary |
Stages covered: upstream prevention; collection; separation/sorting; treatment/valorization; disposal. |
Categorical (multi-label) |
|
Circular strategies |
Prevention/Reduce |
Upstream waste prevention, eco-design, PAYT, avoidance measures. |
Binary/notes |
|
Circular strategies |
Reuse/Repair |
Refill, repair, reuse logistics, sharing systems. |
Binary/notes |
|
Circular strategies |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Source separation, MRF, recycling, material recovery and quality upgrading. |
Binary/notes |
|
Circular strategies |
Organics valorization |
Composting, anaerobic digestion, bio-based products. |
Binary/notes |
|
Circular strategies |
Residual management |
Controlled treatment and sanitary disposal to reduce leakage. |
Binary/notes |
|
Enablers/Barriers |
Governance |
Policy mix, EPR, standards, enforcement, institutional coordination. |
Text (coded) |
|
Enablers/Barriers |
Infrastructure/Technology |
Collection coverage, sorting/treatment capacity, technology readiness. |
Text (coded) |
|
Enablers/Barriers |
Markets/Finance |
Secondary market demand, price volatility, investment and financing. |
Text (coded) |
|
Enablers/Barriers |
Data/Coordination |
Monitoring, traceability, stakeholder collaboration. |
Text (coded) |
|
Enablers/Barriers |
Behaviour/Acceptance |
Participation, trust, acceptance (incl. NIMBY). |
Text (coded) |
|
Mechanisms |
Substitution |
Secondary materials displace virgin inputs; depends on quality and demand. |
Text (coded) |
|
Mechanisms |
Leakage reduction |
Reduced dumping/burning/pollution pathways. |
Text (coded) |
|
Mechanisms |
Market formation/value creation |
Stable demand/standards; new circular services and value. |
Text (coded) |
|
Mechanisms |
Inclusion/legitimacy |
Decent work and inclusion improve legitimacy/participation and system stability. |
Text (coded) |
|
Outcomes (Environmental) |
Indicators and direction |
GHG, energy, pollution, diversion etc; effect direction (positive/negative/mixed). |
Text |
|
Outcomes (Social) |
Indicators and direction |
OHS, inclusion, justice, wellbeing; effect direction. |
Text |
|
Outcomes (Economic) |
Indicators and direction |
Cost/benefit, revenue, jobs, value added; effect direction. |
Text |
|
Quality appraisal |
Quality tier |
High/Medium/Low based on Table A4_meta thresholds. |
Categorical |
|
Key findings |
One-sentence takeaway |
Concise main conclusion relevant to CE-MSWMS-TBL pathways. |
Text |
Table A6. Thematic coding framework
|
Category |
Sub-Code |
Definition |
|
Circular strategies |
Prevention/Reduce |
Reduce waste generation at source (eco-design, PAYT, avoidance). |
|
Circular strategies |
Reuse/Repair |
Extend product/packaging life via reuse, refill, repair systems. |
|
Circular strategies |
Recycling/Recovery |
Recover materials through separation, sorting, MRFs, recycling; improve recyclate quality. |
|
Circular strategies |
Organics valorization |
Valorize organics via composting/AD/bio-products. |
|
Circular strategies |
Residual management |
Manage residuals with controlled treatment and sanitary disposal to reduce leakage. |
|
Enablers |
Governance |
Policy mix, EPR, standards, enforcement, institutional capacity. |
|
Enablers |
Infrastructure/Technology |
Collection coverage; sorting/treatment capacity; technology readiness. |
|
Enablers |
Market/Finance |
Demand for secondary materials; price stability; financing and investment. |
|
Enablers |
Data/Coordination |
Monitoring, traceability, stakeholder coordination and collaboration. |
|
Enablers |
Behavior/Acceptance |
Household/firm participation; awareness; acceptance and NIMBY dynamics. |
|
Mechanisms |
Substitution |
Secondary materials displace virgin inputs; depends on quality and markets. |
|
Mechanisms |
Leakage reduction |
Reduced dumping/burning and environmental leakage. |
|
Mechanisms |
Value creation |
New revenue streams and circular services; improved cost-effectiveness. |
|
Mechanisms |
Legitimacy/Inclusion |
Decent work, inclusion and procedural justice improve legitimacy and stability. |
|
Outcomes |
Environmental |
Emissions/pollution reduction; resource conservation; diversion. |
|
Outcomes |
Social |
OHS; inclusion/livelihoods; procedural justice; wellbeing/acceptance. |
|
Outcomes |
Economic |
Costs, revenues, jobs, investment, value added. |
|
Moderators |
Context |
Governance capacity; waste composition; market maturity; urban form; informality. |
Table A7. Social outcome dimensions
|
Social Outcome Dimension |
Operational Definition |
Typical Indicators/Proxies |
|
Decent work & occupational health and safety (OHS) |
Safe and dignified working conditions along the waste value chain. |
Exposure, injuries, PPE access, formal protections, training. |
|
Inclusion & livelihoods |
Inclusion of informal/vulnerable groups and livelihood stability. |
Income stability, formalization, access to programs/benefits, participation of waste pickers. |
|
Procedural justice & participation |
Fair decision-making processes and meaningful stakeholder participation. |
Transparency, accountability, voice, consultation, grievance mechanisms. |
|
Community wellbeing & acceptance |
Impacts on residents and community acceptance of facilities/practices. |
Health complaints, nuisance/odour, trust, NIMBY, perceived fairness. |
Table A8. Overview of included studies
|
ID |
Authors |
Year |
Title |
Source Title |
|
S1 |
Md Fauadi, M.H.F.M.; Anuar, N.I.; Kurniawati, D.A.; Nur Rosyidi, C.N.; Abdullah, L.; Muhamad Damanhuri, A.A.M.; Jian, T.S. |
2026 |
Recent advances in multi-criteria decision-making approaches for circular supply chains: A comprehensive review |
Multidisciplinary Reviews |
|
S2 |
Kokane, P.; Shete, G.; Handore, K.; Jakhar, R.; Styszko, K. |
2026 |
Waste-to-Energy in India: A Decompositional Analysis |
Applied Sciences (Switzerland) |
|
S3 |
Esposito, L.; Accardo, F.; Prandi, B.; Tedeschi, T. |
2025 |
How food wastes can be converted into new products: European legislation and analysis of enzymatic hydrolysis |
New Biotechnology |
|
S4 |
Pambudi, N.F.; Samarakoon, S.M.S.M.K.; Simatupang, T.M.; Ratnayake, R.M.C.; Mulyono, N.B. |
2025 |
Risk management for the circular economy business model sustainability of reduce, reuse, and recycling in plastic waste management |
Discover Sustainability |
|
S5 |
Gangwar, P.; Narain, A.; Saini, A.; Mitra, D.; Karmakar, R.; Assefa, A. |
2025 |
Sustainable approaches to solar photovoltaic waste management under environmental uncertainty |
Discover Environment |
|
S6 |
Chandra, N.P.; Subashini, R. |
2025 |
Mapping the landscape of sustainable development in the pharmaceutical industry a bibliometric analysis |
Discover Sustainability |
|
S7 |
Ghoneim, M.M.; Halabya, A.; Moussa, O.M.; Hassan, A.A. |
2025 |
An empirical assessment of material waste drivers and sustainability strategies in Egypt’s construction sector |
Discover Sustainability |
|
S8 |
Anokye, K. |
2025 |
Black Soldier Fly Larvae as a circular solution for organic waste management and sustainable livestock feed in Ghana |
Cleaner Waste Systems |
|
S9 |
Bokor, B. |
2025 |
Legal analysis of the EU regulatory framework on circular economy and sustainability principles in plastic food packaging |
Cleaner Waste Systems |
|
S10 |
Battiston, E.; Ren, J.; Mazzi, A. |
2025 |
Sustainable circularity performance indicators to optimize waste management at company level |
Sustainable Futures |
|
S11 |
Yu, H.; Zahidi, I.; Chow, C.M.; Madsen, D.Ø. |
2025 |
Preliminary evaluation of mining area sustainability using multi-criteria decision-making methods |
Environmental Sciences Europe |
|
S12 |
Baseri, S. |
2025 |
An attractive path to use of green resources for production of antibacterial and antioxidant wool yarns |
Scientific Reports |
|
S13 |
Zervoudi, E.K.; Christopoulos, A.G.; Niotis, I. |
2025 |
Food Waste and the Three Pillars of Sustainability: Economic, Environmental and Social Perspectives from Greece’s Food Service and Retail Sectors |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S14 |
Sedliačiková, M.; Kostúr, M.; Osvaldová, M. |
2025 |
Proposing Green Growth Indicators for Enterprises in the Woodworking and Furniture Industry |
Forests |
|
S15 |
Polman, D. |
2025 |
Policymaking for circular urban food systems: A systematic literature review of policy instruments and governance arrangements |
Regional Science Policy and Practice |
|
S16 |
Zseni, A.; Horváth, A.; MacHer, G.Z.; Sipos, D.; Pécsinger, J. |
2025 |
Using Multivariate Statistical Analysis for Examining the Relationship between Food Waste Generation and Socio-economic Factors |
Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems |
|
S17 |
Makan, A.; Salama, Y.; Mamouni, F.Z.; Makan, M. |
2025 |
Towards Zero-Waste Cities: An Integrated and Circular Approach to Sustainable Solid Waste Management |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S18 |
Weerakoon, T.G.; Zvirgzdins, J.; Geipele, S.; Wimalasena, S.; Drukis, P. |
2025 |
Integrating Circular Economy (CE) Principles into Construction Waste Management (CWM) Through Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S19 |
Ogwu, M.C.; Hills, C.E.; Pietrosemoli, S. |
2025 |
The Piggy Solution: Harnessing Food Waste for Sustainable Hog Farming |
Global Challenges |
|
S20 |
Derse, O.; Göçmen, E.G. |
2025 |
EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES IN THE CONTEXT OF ZERO-WASTE CITY AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY CONCEPT |
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal |
|
S21 |
Saleh, M.A.S.; AlShafeey, M. |
2025 |
Examining the synergies between industry 4.0 and sustainability dimensions using text mining, sentiment analysis, and association rules |
Sustainable Futures |
|
S22 |
Kafle, S.; Karki, B.K.; Sakhakarmy, M.; Adhikari, S. |
2025 |
A Review of Global Municipal Solid Waste Management and Valorization Pathways |
Recycling |
|
S23 |
Anokye, K.; Darko, A.O.; Portia, A.; Amuah, E.E.Y.; Sodoke, S.; Agya, B.A.; Douti, N.B.; Kazapoe, R.W.; Bentil, J. |
2025 |
Exploring waste activation and mineralization for environmental and economic sustainability in Ghana |
Cleaner Waste Systems |
|
S24 |
Toboso-Chavero, S.; Zisopoulos, F.K.; de Jong, M.; Schraven, D. |
2025 |
Critical review of methodological tools and trends for assessing the performance of inclusive circular cities |
Cleaner Environmental Systems |
|
S25 |
Santamaria, Y.; Omisakin, O.M. |
2025 |
Food Waste Management Practices: The Case of Invercargill's Food and Beverages Sector in New Zealand |
Journal of Sustainability Research |
|
S26 |
Li, Z.; Fan, T.W.; Lun, M.S.; Li, Q.; Hong, Q.; Chen, H.; Ma, L.; Yu, J. |
2025 |
Study on implementation of anaerobic digestion and composting technologies for kitchen waste management: A case study in Macau |
Heliyon |
|
S27 |
Mugivhisa, L.L.; Manganyi, M.C. |
2025 |
Green Catalysis: The Role of Medicinal Plants as Food Waste Decomposition Enhancers/Accelerators |
Life |
|
S28 |
Ivanovic, N.; Vučinić, A.; Marinković, V.; Krajnovic, D.; Ćurcǐć, M. |
2025 |
Towards Sustainable Food Waste Management in Serbia: A Review of Challenges, Gaps, and Future Perspectives |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S29 |
Tahir, F.; Rasheed, R.; Fatima, M.; Batool, F.; Nizami, A.-S. |
2025 |
Sustainability Analysis of Commercial-Scale Biogas Plants in Pakistan vs. Germany: A Novel Analytic Hierarchy Process—SMARTER Approach |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S30 |
Adu, T.F.; Mensah, L.D.; Rockson, M.A.D.; Kemausuor, F. |
2025 |
Decision support systems for waste-to-energy technologies: A systematic literature review of methods and future directions for sustainable implementation in Ghana |
Heliyon |
|
S31 |
Bastos, T.; Nunes, L.J.R.; Teixeira, L. |
2025 |
Fostering Circularity in Agroforestry Biomass: A Regulatory Framework for Sustainable Resource Management |
Land |
|
S32 |
Ghinea, C.; Ungureanu-Comanita, E.-D.; Țâbuleac, R.M.; Oprea, P.S.; Cosbuc, E.D.; Gavrilescu, M. |
2025 |
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Enzymatic Hydrolysis Alternatives for Food Waste Management |
Foods |
|
S33 |
Poma, P.; Fdz-Polanco, M.; Usca, K.; Casella, C.; Toulkeridis, T. |
2025 |
An Evaluation of the Public Service of the Integrated Municipal Management of Urban Solid Waste in the Galapagos and the Amazonian Region of Ecuador |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S34 |
Mihăilă, M.; Ignat, G.; Costuleanu, C.L.; Jitǎreanu, A.F. |
2025 |
FOOD WASTE ISSUE CONNECTED TO CHALLENGES OF CIRCULAR ECONOMY: AN APPROACH FOR SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS |
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal |
|
S35 |
Meneghello, F.; Fontana, C.F.; Lamano-Ferreira, M.L.; Sakurai, C.A. |
2025 |
Opportunities and challenges of the Regional Plan for Integrated Solid Waste Management in the Metropolitan Region of Santos: thinking collectively to solve locally; Oportunidades e desafios do Plano Regional de Gestão Integrada de Resíduos Sólidos da Região Metropolitana de Santos: pensar coletivamente para resolver localmente; Oportunidades y desafíos del Plan Regional de Gestión Integral de Residuos Sólidos de la Región Metropolitana de Santos: pensar colectivamente para resolver localmente |
Revista de Gestao Ambiental e Sustentabilidade |
|
S36 |
Pavesi, R.; Orsi, L.; Zanderighi, L. |
2025 |
Enhancing Circularity in Urban Waste Management: A Case Study on Biochar from Urban Pruning |
Environments - MDPI |
|
S37 |
Činčikaitė, R. |
2025 |
Assessment of Sustainable Waste Management: A Case Study in Lithuania |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S38 |
Ibrahim, H.Z.; Alqahtani, M.H. |
2025 |
Frameworks and implementation strategies for sustainable waste-to-energy alternatives: a study using bipolar complex intuitionistic fuzzy-based multi-attribute decision-making |
AIMS Mathematics |
|
S39 |
Rai, N.; Pavankumar, T.L.; Ghotra, B.; Dhillon, S.; Juneja, V.; Amaly, N.; Pandey, P. |
2025 |
Essential recycling and repurposing of food waste for environment and sustainability |
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems |
|
S40 |
Valtere, M.; Bezrucko, T.; Liberova, V.; Blumberga, D. |
2025 |
Recycling of Mixed Post-Consumer Textiles: Opportunities for Sustainable Product Development |
Environmental and Climate Technologies |
|
S41 |
Velez Osorio, I.M. |
2025 |
THE IMPACT OF INNOVATION ON ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR; РОЛЬ ІННОВАЦІЙ У ПРОСУВАННІ СТІЙКИХ ПРАКТИК У ПРОМИСЛОВОМУ СЕКТОРІ |
Science and Innovation |
|
S42 |
Pilarski, K.; Pilarska, A.A.; Dach, J. |
2025 |
Biogas as renewable energy source: A brief overview |
Journal of Ecological Engineering |
|
S43 |
Xames, M.D.; Topcu, T.G. |
2025 |
How Can Digital Twins Support the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability of Healthcare Systems: A Systematic Review Focused on the Triple Bottom Line |
IEEE Access |
|
S44 |
Ali, S.S.; Alsharbaty, M.H.M.; Al-Tohamy, R.; Khalil, M.A.; Schagerl, M.; Al-Zahrani, M.; Sun, J. |
2024 |
Microplastics as an Emerging Potential Threat: Toxicity, Life Cycle Assessment, and Management |
Toxics |
|
S45 |
Farshadfar, Z.; Mucha, T.; Tanskanen, K. |
2024 |
Leveraging Machine Learning for Advancing Circular Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review |
Logistics |
|
S46 |
Srećković, M.; Hartmann, D.; Schützenhofer, S.; Kotecki, A. |
2024 |
Bridging theory and practice: Stakeholder insights on circular economy in the building life cycle |
Energy Reports |
|
S47 |
Ahmad, W.; Hassan, M.; Masud, S.F.B.; Amjad, M.S.; Samara, F.; Sheikh, Z.; Anwar, M.; Rafique, M.Z.; Nawaz, T. |
2024 |
Socio-economic benefits and policy implications of generating sustainable energy from municipal solid waste in Pakistan |
Energy and Climate Change |
|
S48 |
Almukhtar, A.; Batcup, C.; Bowman, M.; Winter Beatty, J.; Leff, D.; Demirel, P.; Judah, G.; Porat, T. |
2024 |
Interventions to achieve environmentally sustainable operating theatres: An umbrella systematic review using the behaviour change wheel |
International Journal of Surgery |
|
S49 |
Almansour, M.; Akrami, M. |
2024 |
Towards Zero Waste: An In-Depth Analysis of National Policies, Strategies, and Case Studies in Waste Minimisation |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S50 |
Arroyo, J.; Pillajo, C.; Barrio, J.; Compais, P.; Tavares, V.D. |
2024 |
Deep Learning Techniques for Enhanced Flame Monitoring in Cement Rotary Kilns Using Petcoke and Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S51 |
Nubi, O.; Murphy, R.; Morse, S. |
2024 |
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Waste to Energy Systems in the Developing World: A Review |
Environments - MDPI |
|
S52 |
Kȩpniak, M.; Łukowski, P. |
2024 |
Multicriteria Analysis of Cement Mortar with Recycled Sand |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S53 |
Alavi, Z.; Khalilpour, K.; Florin, N. |
2024 |
Forecasting End-of-Life Wind Turbine Material Flows in Australia under Various Wind Energy Deployment Scenarios |
Energies |
|
S54 |
Al-Sharif, M.; Geldermans, B.; Rinke, M. |
2024 |
From waste to wealth: a study of concrete recycling in Jordan |
Frontiers in Sustainability |
|
S55 |
Voukkali, I.; Papamichael, I.; Loizia, P.; Zorpas, A.A. |
2023 |
The importance of KPIs to calibrate waste strategy in hospitality sector |
Energy Nexus |
|
S56 |
Onyeaka, H.; Tamasiga, P.; Nwauzoma, U.M.; Miri, T.; Juliet, U.C.; Nwaiwu, O.; Akinsemolu, A.A. |
2023 |
Using Artificial Intelligence to Tackle Food Waste and Enhance the Circular Economy: Maximising Resource Efficiency and Minimising Environmental Impact: A Review |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S57 |
Ponnambalam, S.G.; Sankaranarayanan, B.; Karuppiah, K.; Thinakaran, S.; Chandravelu, P.; Lam, H.L. |
2023 |
Analysing the Barriers Involved in Recycling the Textile Waste in India Using Fuzzy DEMATEL |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S58 |
Miolla, R.; Ottomano Palmisano, G.; Roma, R.; Caponio, F.; Difonzo, G.; De Boni, A. |
2023 |
Functional Foods Acceptability: A Consumers’ Survey on Bread Enriched with Oenological By-Products |
Foods |
|
S59 |
Rondón Toro, E.; López Martínez, A.; Lobo-García de Cortázar, A. |
2023 |
Sequential Methodology for the Selection of Municipal Waste Treatment Alternatives Applied to a Case Study in Chile |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S60 |
Roy, P.; Mohanty, A.K.; Dick, P.; Misra, M. |
2023 |
A Review on the Challenges and Choices for Food Waste Valorization: Environmental and Economic Impacts |
ACS Environmental Au |
|
S61 |
Mahanth, T.; Suryasekaran, C.R.; Ponnambalam, S.G.; Sankaranarayanan, B.; Karuppiah, K.; Nielsen, I.E. |
2023 |
Modelling the Barriers to Circular Economy Practices in the Indian State of Tamil Nadu in Managing E-Wastes to Achieve Green Environment |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S62 |
Alao, M.A.; Popoola, O.M.; Ayodele, T.R. |
2022 |
Waste‐to‐energy nexus: An overview of technologies and implementation for sustainable development |
Cleaner Energy Systems |
|
S63 |
Kowalski, Z.; Kulczycka, J.; Makara, A.; Verhé, R.; de Clercq, G. |
2022 |
Assessment of Energy Recovery from Municipal Waste Management Systems Using Circular Economy Quality Indicators |
Energies |
|
S64 |
Al-Thani, N.A.; Al-Ansari, T.; Haouari, M. |
2022 |
Integrated TOPSIS-COV approach for selecting a sustainable PET waste management technology: A case study in Qatar |
Heliyon |
|
S65 |
Tomov, M.; Velkoska, C. |
2022 |
Contribution of the quality costs to sustainable development |
Production Engineering Archives |
|
S66 |
Bozhanova, V.; Korenyuk, P.; Lozovskyi, O.; Belous-Sergeeva, S.; Bielienkova, O.; Koval, V. |
2022 |
Green Enterprise Logistics Management System in Circular Economy |
International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences |
|
S67 |
Huang, Y.; Shafiee, M.; Charnley, F.; Encinas-Oropesa, A. |
2022 |
Designing a Framework for Materials Flow by Integrating Circular Economy Principles with End-of-life Management Strategies |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S68 |
Betts, K.; Gutierrez-Franco, E.; Ponce-Cueto, E. |
2022 |
Key metrics to measure the performance and impact of reusable packaging in circular supply chains |
Frontiers in Sustainability |
|
S69 |
Manoharan, S.; Kumar Pulimi, V.S.; Kabir, G.; Ali, S.M. |
2022 |
Contextual relationships among drivers and barriers to circular economy: An integrated ISM and DEMATEL approach |
Sustainable Operations and Computers |
|
S70 |
Nadaždi, A.; Naunovic, Z.; Ivanišević, N. |
2022 |
Circular Economy in Construction and Demolition Waste Management in the Western Balkans: A Sustainability Assessment Framework |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S71 |
Georgescu, I.; Kinnunen, J.; Androniceanu, A.-M. |
2021 |
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON CIRCULAR ECONOMY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: A PANEL APPROACH |
Journal of Business Economics and Management |
|
S72 |
Melles, G. |
2021 |
Figuring the transition from circular economy to circular society in Australia |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S73 |
Chhimwal, M.; Agrawal, S.; Kumar, G. |
2021 |
Measuring circular supply chain risk: A bayesian network methodology |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S74 |
Gaballo, M.; Mecca, B.; Abastante, F. |
2021 |
Adaptive reuse and sustainability protocols in italy: Relationship with circular economy |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S75 |
Mihalčová, B.; Korauš, A.; Prokopenko, O.; Hvastová, J.; Freňáková, M.; Gallo, P.; Balogová, B. |
2021 |
Effective management tools for solving the problem of poverty in relation to food waste in context of integrated management of energy |
Energies |
|
S76 |
Yáñez, P.P. |
2021 |
Viabilidad de la economía circular en países no industrializados y su ajuste a una propuesta de economías transformadoras. Un acercamiento al escenario latinoamericano |
CIRIEC-Espana Revista de Economia Publica, Social y Cooperativa |
|
S77 |
Schoeman, Y.; Oberholster, P.; Somerset, V. |
2021 |
A zero‐waste multi‐criteria decision‐support model for the iron and steel industry in developing countries: A case study |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S78 |
Quintero, A.; Albertí, J.; Carvajal, G.I.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P. |
2021 |
Stabilising rural roads with waste streams in colombia as an environmental strategy based on a life cycle assessment methodology |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S79 |
Dos Santos, P.S.; Campos, L.M.S. |
2021 |
Practices for garment industry’s post-consumer textile waste management in the circular economy context: An analysis on literature |
Brazilian Journal of Operations and Production Management |
|
S80 |
Boschi, G.; Masi, G.; Bonvicini, G.; Bignozzi, M.C. |
2020 |
Sustainability in Italian ceramic tile production: Evaluation of the environmental impact |
Applied Sciences (Switzerland) |
|
S81 |
Stankeviciene, J.; Nikanorova, M. |
2020 |
Eco-innovation as a pillar for sustainable development of circular economy |
Business: Theory and Practice |
|
S82 |
Smol, M.; Marcinek, P.; Duda, J.; Szołdrowska, D. |
2020 |
Importance of sustainable mineral resource management in implementing the circular economy (CE) model and the European green deal strategy |
Resources |
|
S83 |
Bruni, C.; Akyol, C.; Cipolletta, G.; Eusebi, A.L.; Caniani, D.; Masi, S.; Colón, J.; Fatone, F. |
2020 |
Decentralized community composting: Past, present and future aspects of Italy |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S84 |
Isernia, R.; Passaro, R.; Quinto, I.; Thomas, A. |
2019 |
The reverse supply chain of the e-waste management processes in a circular economy framework: Evidence from Italy |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S85 |
Rapsikevičienė, J.; Gurauskiene, I.; Jučienė, A. |
2019 |
Model of industrial textile waste management |
Environmental Research, Engineering and Management |
|
S86 |
Taelman, S.E.; Tonini, D.; Wandl, A.; Dewulf, J. |
2018 |
A Holistic sustainability framework for waste management in European Cities: Concept development |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S87 |
Milios, L.; Davani, A.E.; Yu, Y. |
2018 |
Sustainability impact assessment of increased plastic recycling and future pathways of plastic waste management in Sweden |
Recycling |
|
S88 |
Velenturf, A.P.M.; Purnell, P. |
2017 |
Resource recovery from waste: Restoring the balance between resource scarcity and waste overload |
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
|
S89 |
Bartolacci, F.; Del Gobbo, R.; Paolini, A.; Soverchia, M. |
2017 |
Waste management companies towards circular economy: What impacts on production costs? |
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal |
|
S90 |
Imbert, E. |
2017 |
Food waste valorization options: Opportunities from the bioeconomy |
Open Agriculture |
Table A9. Evidence matrix for propositions
|
Framework Relationship (Proposition) |
Mechanism |
Outcome Pillar(s) |
Supporting Studies (IDs) |
Preliminary Strength of Evidence |
Key Moderators / Boundary Conditions |
|
P1. Higher-order value-retention strategies (prevention/reuse/repair) → stronger TBL potential than recycling-only approaches |
Value retention / loop slowing |
Environmental; Social; Economic |
S4, S7, S17, S20, S28, S37, S40, S46, S48, S52, S54, S58, S63, S68, S74, S76, S77, S79, S85 |
Strong (keyword-matched ≥ 10 studies; to be confirmed by full-text coding) |
Moderated by waste composition, user participation, and availability of reuse infrastructure |
|
P2. Separation/sorting quality → stronger substitution mechanism → improved environmental and often economic outcomes |
Material quality → substitution of virgin inputs |
Environmental; Economic |
S7, S17, S19, S22, S26, S33, S40, S50, S54, S61, S63, S65, S67, S74, S76, S79, S80 |
Strong (keyword-matched ≥ 10 studies; to be confirmed by full-text coding) |
Moderated by secondary market demand and contamination rates |
|
P3. Policy mixes and well-designed targets → stronger strategy uptake and effectiveness than single instruments |
Incentives, coordination, compliance |
Environmental; Social; Economic |
S2, S4, S5, S6, S7, S9, S11, S15, S17, S20, S24, S26, S28, S36, S37, S48, S54, S57, S83, S84, S86 |
Strong (keyword-matched ≥ 10 studies; to be confirmed by full-text coding) |
Moderated by enforcement capacity and institutional coordination |
|
P4. Well-designed and enforced EPR → improved downstream recycling performance and prevention incentives |
Extended producer responsibility → coordination and cost internalization |
Environmental; Economic (and indirect Social) |
S3, S4, S5, S8, S13, S14, S28, S36, S44, S49, S50, S64, S65, S72, S75, S84, S85, S86 |
Strong (keyword-matched ≥ 10 studies; to be confirmed by full-text coding) |
Moderated by scheme design (fees, eco-modulation) and enforcement |
|
P5. Market formation and finance → higher economic viability and scaling of circular strategies |
Market demand/standards/finance → scale-up |
Economic (and indirect Environmental/ Social) |
S17, S36, S61, S73 |
Moderate (keyword-matched 4-9 studies; to be confirmed by full-text coding) |
Moderated by price volatility, procurement, and investment conditions |
|
P6. Social safeguards (decent work/inclusion) → higher legitimacy and more stable system performance |
Inclusion/legitimacy → participation and continuity |
Social (and indirect Environmental/ Economic) |
S5, S24, S30, S76 |
Moderate (keyword-matched 4-9 studies; to be confirmed by full-text coding) |
Moderated by informality level and labour governance |
|
P7. Impact-based assessment (e.g., LCA/LCSA) → more reliable TBL inference than mass-based circularity metrics alone |
Assessment choice → inference robustness |
Environmental; Social; Economic (inference quality) |
S3, S4, S6, S7, S10, S11, S14, S16, S20, S24, S30, S31, S32, S33, S34, S37, S38, S40, S43, S44, S46, S48, S51, S53, S55, S60, S61, S63, S68, S72, S73, S78, S80, S85, S86, S87, S90 |
Strong (keyword-matched ≥ 10 studies; to be confirmed by full-text coding) |
Moderated by data availability and boundary assumptions |
|
P8. Socio-technical alignment (landscape-regime-niche) → heterogeneous outcomes across contexts |
Transition dynamics / alignment |
Environmental; Social; Economic |
S2, S3, S6, S14, S15, S22, S23, S30, S39, S42, S49, S52, S54, S60, S62, S72, S74, S76, S82, S84, S86, S87, S88, S90 |
Strong (keyword-matched ≥ 10 studies; to be confirmed by full-text coding) |
Moderated by regime lock-in, infrastructure, and policy coherence |
Table A10. Planned robustness checks
|
Robustness Check |
Procedure |
Comparison |
How Results will be Reported |
Purpose |
|
Quality sensitivity check |
Re-run thematic synthesis excluding studies rated 'Low' quality (Table A4_meta). |
Themes and framework relations (P1-P8) before vs after exclusion. |
Report whether each theme/relation is Stable / Partially changed / Changed; list relations affected and why. |
Assesses whether conclusions depend on low-quality evidence. |
|
Context split (development level) |
Split included studies by country income group (World Bank classification) or Global North/South proxy. |
Direction and prominence of mechanisms and outcomes across contexts. |
Report differences in effect direction and moderators (e.g., informality, enforcement, market maturity). |
Tests context dependence predicted by transitions lens (P8). |
|
Waste stream split |
Group studies by dominant waste stream (mixed MSW vs plastics vs organics). |
Mechanisms (substitution, leakage reduction, market formation) and TBL outcomes by stream. |
Report stream-specific pathways and whether propositions require stream-specific boundary conditions. |
Reduces over-generalisation and strengthens applicability. |
|
Method split |
Group studies by method family (LCA/LCSA vs modelling vs case study/policy analysis). |
Differences in measured outcomes and inferences about trade-offs. |
Report whether impact-based methods reveal trade-offs not visible in metric-only studies (P7). |
Checks methodological bias and inference robustness. |
|
OA filter sensitivity (optional) |
Repeat search without OA=publisherfullgold (if feasible) to test coverage bias. |
Included-study profile (topics, regions, methods) with vs without OA restriction. |
Report changes in geographic coverage and topic distribution; note any new evidence affecting propositions. |
Assesses whether OA restriction skews the evidence base. |
Table A11. Characteristics of included studies
|
Study_ID |
First Author |
Year |
Case Location |
Scale |
Waste Stream |
Boundary/Stage |
Method Family |
|
S001 |
Md Fauadi, M.H.F.M. et al. |
2026 |
Not reported |
Regional |
WEEE/E-waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S002 |
Kokane, P. et al. |
2026 |
India |
City/municipal |
C&D waste |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S003 |
Esposito, L. et al. |
2025 |
Italy |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Reuse |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S004 |
Pambudi, N.F. et al. |
2025 |
Indonesia |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Qualitative interviews/case study |
|
S005 |
Gangwar, P. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
WEEE/E-waste |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S006 |
Chandra, N.P. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Plastics |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S007 |
Ghoneim, M.M. et al. |
2025 |
Egypt |
System/unspecified |
C&D waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Survey/SEM |
|
S008 |
Anokye, K. et al. |
2025 |
Ghana |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Landfill/Disposal |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S009 |
Bokor, B. et al. |
2025 |
Norway |
Multi-country/region |
Plastics |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S010 |
Battiston, E. et al. |
2025 |
Multiple/Not explicit |
Regional |
Plastics |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S011 |
Yu, H. et al. |
2025 |
Multiple/Not explicit |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S012 |
Baseri, S. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Optimization / OR modelling |
|
S013 |
Zervoudi, E.K. et al. |
2025 |
Greece |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Prevention/Upstream |
Optimization / OR modelling |
|
S014 |
Sedliačiková, M. et al. |
2025 |
Slovakia |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Qualitative interviews/case study |
|
S015 |
Polman, D. et al. |
2025 |
Netherlands |
City/municipal |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S016 |
Zseni, A. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
Multi-country/region |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S017 |
Makan, A. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S018 |
Weerakoon, T.G. et al. |
2025 |
Sri Lanka |
System/unspecified |
C&D waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S019 |
Ogwu, M.C. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Organics treatment/valorization |
Review (systematic/bibliometric) |
|
S020 |
Derse, O. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
General / system-wide |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S021 |
Saleh, M.A.S. et al. |
2025 |
Hungary |
System/unspecified |
WEEE/E-waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Optimization / OR modelling |
|
S022 |
Kafle, S. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
Mixed MSW |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Review (systematic/bibliometric) |
|
S023 |
Anokye, K. et al. |
2025 |
Ghana |
City/municipal |
Industrial waste |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S024 |
Toboso-Chavero, S. et al. |
2025 |
Netherlands |
City/municipal |
Mixed MSW |
Reuse |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S025 |
Santamaria, Y. et al. |
2025 |
Multiple/Not explicit |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Collection/Separation |
Qualitative interviews/case study |
|
S026 |
Li, Z. et al. |
2025 |
Hong Kong |
City/municipal |
Organics/Food waste |
Organics treatment/valorization |
Optimization / OR modelling |
|
S027 |
Mugivhisa, L.L. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Organics treatment/valorization |
Review (systematic/bibliometric) |
|
S028 |
Ivanovic, N. et al. |
2025 |
Serbia |
Regional |
Organics/Food waste |
Prevention/Upstream |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S029 |
Tahir, F. et al. |
2025 |
Germany |
System/unspecified |
Mixed MSW |
Organics treatment/valorization |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S030 |
Adu, T.F. et al. |
2025 |
Ghana |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S031 |
Bastos, T. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Plastics |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S032 |
Ghinea, C. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Other/unspecified |
|
S033 |
Poma, P. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
Mixed MSW |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Qualitative interviews/case study |
|
S034 |
Mihăilă, M. et al. |
2025 |
Romania |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Organics treatment/valorization |
Other/unspecified |
|
S035 |
Meneghello, F. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
Mixed MSW |
Landfill/Disposal |
Survey/SEM |
|
S036 |
Pavesi, R. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
Organics/Food waste |
Landfill/Disposal |
Qualitative interviews/case study |
|
S037 |
Činčikaitė, R. et al. |
2025 |
Multiple/Not explicit |
City/municipal |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S038 |
Ibrahim, H.Z. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S039 |
Rai, N. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Other/unspecified |
|
S040 |
Valtere, M. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
Multi-country/region |
Industrial waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S041 |
Velez Osorio, I.M. et al. |
2025 |
Colombia |
System/unspecified |
Plastics |
Reuse |
Other/unspecified |
|
S042 |
Pilarski, K. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Organics treatment/valorization |
Other/unspecified |
|
S043 |
Xames, M.D. et al. |
2025 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Review (systematic/bibliometric) |
|
S044 |
Ali, S.S. et al. |
2024 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Plastics |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S045 |
Farshadfar, Z. et al. |
2024 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Optimization / OR modelling |
|
S046 |
Srećković, M. et al. |
2024 |
Austria |
System/unspecified |
C&D waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S047 |
Ahmad, W. et al. |
2024 |
Pakistan |
City/municipal |
Organics/Food waste |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S048 |
Almukhtar, A. et al. |
2024 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
Reuse |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S049 |
Almansour, M. et al. |
2024 |
Multiple/Not explicit |
City/municipal |
Plastics |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Review (systematic/bibliometric) |
|
S050 |
Arroyo, J. et al. |
2024 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Industrial waste |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Optimization / OR modelling |
|
S051 |
Nubi, O. et al. |
2024 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Mixed MSW |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S052 |
Kȩpniak, M. et al. |
2024 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Plastics |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S053 |
Alavi, Z. et al. |
2024 |
Australia |
National |
Plastics |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Material flow analysis (MFA) |
|
S054 |
Al-Sharif, M. et al. |
2024 |
Jordan |
National |
WEEE/E-waste |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S055 |
Voukkali, I. et al. |
2023 |
Cyprus |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Optimization / OR modelling |
|
S056 |
Onyeaka, H. et al. |
2023 |
Not reported |
Regional |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S057 |
Ponnambalam, S.G. et al. |
2023 |
India |
System/unspecified |
Industrial waste |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S058 |
Miolla, R. et al. |
2023 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Survey/SEM |
|
S059 |
Rondón Toro, E. et al. |
2023 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
Organics/Food waste |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S060 |
Roy, P. et al. |
2023 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S061 |
Mahanth, T. et al. |
2023 |
India |
System/unspecified |
WEEE/E-waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S062 |
Alao, M.A. et al. |
2022 |
Multiple/Not explicit |
City/municipal |
Organics/Food waste |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Other/unspecified |
|
S063 |
Kowalski, Z. et al. |
2022 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
Organics/Food waste |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S064 |
Al-Thani, N.A. et al. |
2022 |
Qatar |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S065 |
Tomov, M. et al. |
2022 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
Reuse |
Other/unspecified |
|
S066 |
Bozhanova, V. et al. |
2022 |
Ukraine |
City/municipal |
Plastics |
Collection/Separation |
Qualitative interviews/case study |
|
S067 |
Huang, Y. et al. |
2022 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S068 |
Betts, K. et al. |
2022 |
Japan |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
Reuse |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S069 |
Manoharan, S. et al. |
2022 |
Bangladesh |
System/unspecified |
WEEE/E-waste |
Reuse |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S070 |
Nadaždi, A. et al. |
2022 |
Not reported |
Regional |
C&D waste |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S071 |
Georgescu, I. et al. |
2021 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
Plastics |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S072 |
Melles, G. et al. |
2021 |
Australia |
Regional |
General / system-wide |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Qualitative interviews/case study |
|
S073 |
Chhimwal, M. et al. |
2021 |
Not reported |
Regional |
General / system-wide |
Reuse |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S074 |
Gaballo, M. et al. |
2021 |
Italy |
System/unspecified |
C&D waste |
Reuse |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S075 |
Mihalčová, B. et al. |
2021 |
Not reported |
Multi-country/region |
Organics/Food waste |
Reuse |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S076 |
Yáñez, P.P. et al. |
2021 |
Not reported |
Regional |
WEEE/E-waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Other/unspecified |
|
S077 |
Schoeman, Y. et al. |
2021 |
South Africa |
System/unspecified |
Industrial waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S078 |
Quintero, A. et al. |
2021 |
Colombia |
System/unspecified |
Plastics |
Waste-to-energy/Thermal |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S079 |
Dos Santos, P.S. et al. |
2021 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
Collection/Separation |
Review (systematic/bibliometric) |
|
S080 |
Boschi, G. et al. |
2020 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S081 |
Stankeviciene, J. et al. |
2020 |
Not reported |
Regional |
Organics/Food waste |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Decision-support / MCDA |
|
S082 |
Smol, M. et al. |
2020 |
Not reported |
National |
General / system-wide |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Other/unspecified |
|
S083 |
Bruni, C. et al. |
2020 |
Italy |
National |
Organics/Food waste |
Organics treatment/valorization |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S084 |
Isernia, R. et al. |
2019 |
Not reported |
National |
WEEE/E-waste |
Collection/Separation |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S085 |
Rapsikevičienė, J. et al. |
2019 |
Lithuania |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Qualitative interviews/case study |
|
S086 |
Taelman, S.E. et al. |
2018 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
Industrial waste |
Collection/Separation |
Other/unspecified |
|
S087 |
Milios, L. et al. |
2018 |
Sweden |
Multi-country/region |
Plastics |
Recycling/Material recovery |
Life cycle assessment (LCA) |
|
S088 |
Velenturf, A.P.M. et al. |
2017 |
UK |
System/unspecified |
General / system-wide |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Policy / institutional analysis |
|
S089 |
Bartolacci, F. et al. |
2017 |
Not reported |
City/municipal |
Mixed MSW |
Collection/Separation |
Other/unspecified |
|
S090 |
Imbert, E. et al. |
2017 |
Not reported |
System/unspecified |
Organics/Food waste |
System-wide/multi-stage |
Policy / institutional analysis |
Table A12. Enablers and barriers to CE implementation
|
Domain |
Top Theme |
Studies (n) |
Predominant Polarity |
Barrier (n) |
Enabler (n) |
Mixed (n) |
Neutral Mention (n) |
Operationalization (How Measured/Observed) |
|
Behaviour/ Acceptance |
Public awareness & education |
75 |
Mixed |
7 |
22 |
24 |
22 |
Education/training/communication interventions; assessed via program descriptions, survey measures, and behavioural outcomes. |
|
Behaviour/ Acceptance |
Participation & sorting behaviour |
71 |
Mention |
2 |
20 |
20 |
29 |
Participation rates, sorting compliance, WTP and behavioural determinants; assessed via surveys, participation statistics, or compliance outcomes. |
|
Behaviour/ Acceptance |
Social acceptance / NIMBY |
26 |
Mention |
4 |
4 |
6 |
12 |
Community acceptance/opposition and perceived legitimacy; assessed via surveys, complaints/protests, or qualitative stakeholder accounts. |
|
Coordination/ Data |
Data availability & monitoring systems |
68 |
Mention |
7 |
15 |
9 |
37 |
Waste-flow data completeness, monitoring/reporting systems, traceability; assessed via data availability and monitoring system descriptions. |
|
Coordination/ Data |
Stakeholder collaboration & partnerships |
54 |
Enabler |
0 |
22 |
16 |
16 |
Public-private and multi-stakeholder collaboration; assessed via partnership arrangements and coordination outcomes. |
|
Governance |
Policy/regulatory framework |
84 |
Mixed |
2 |
22 |
35 |
25 |
Presence/design of CE/MSW policies and stated enforcement mechanisms; assessed via policy analysis and case evidence. |
|
Governance |
Enforcement & compliance |
52 |
Mention |
4 |
9 |
17 |
22 |
Enforcement capacity and compliance performance (inspection, sanctions, illegal dumping control); identified in implementation narratives. |
|
Governance |
EPR / producer responsibility |
20 |
Mention |
0 |
5 |
3 |
12 |
Design and implementation of EPR schemes (obligations, fees, take-back logistics); assessed via policy design and implementation evidence. |
|
Infrastructure |
Collection coverage & logistics |
81 |
Mixed |
4 |
24 |
30 |
23 |
Service coverage and logistics adequacy (coverage rates, frequency, fleet/routing); assessed via operational indicators or model parameters. |
|
Infrastructure |
Treatment capacity (compost/AD/WtE) |
68 |
Mixed |
3 |
11 |
28 |
26 |
Treatment capacity/performance (throughput, yields, energy recovery); assessed via facility data, scenarios, or case studies. |
|
Infrastructure |
Source separation & sorting capacity |
51 |
Mention |
3 |
10 |
15 |
23 |
Source separation programs, MRF presence, contamination rates; assessed via program design and material-quality indicators. |
|
Markets/ Finance |
Financing & investment |
86 |
Mixed |
7 |
21 |
32 |
26 |
Funding adequacy, investment feasibility, cost recovery; assessed via cost models, budget/finance data, and reported constraints. |
|
Markets/ Finance |
Economic incentives & instruments |
57 |
Enabler |
0 |
28 |
23 |
6 |
Fees/subsidies/PAYT and incentive mechanisms; assessed via policy design, WTP/behaviour evidence, or scenario assumptions. |
|
Markets/ Finance |
Market demand & offtake for recyclates |
30 |
Mention |
2 |
8 |
6 |
14 |
Stability of end-markets (demand, price volatility, offtake); assessed via market analysis and reported offtake/price constraints. |
Table A13. TBL outcome indicators
|
Pillar |
Indicator Category |
Studies (n, %) |
Typical Metrics/Operationalization |
|
Economic |
Cost/efficiency |
54 (60.0%) |
CAPEX/OPEX; cost per ton; levelized cost; NPV/IRR; system cost savings. |
|
Environmental |
Energy use/production |
49 (54.4%) |
MJ/ton; net electricity/heat; biogas yield; energy recovery efficiency. |
|
Economic |
Revenue/value creation |
48 (53.3%) |
revenue from recyclates/compost/energy; value added; avoided disposal costs; market price signals. |
|
Social |
OHS/health & safety |
33 (36.7%) |
injury/illness risk; exposure proxies; safety compliance; risk assessment indicators. |
|
Environmental |
GHG/Climate |
32 (35.6%) |
kg CO2e/ton MSW; life-cycle GWP; avoided emissions from recycling/energy recovery. |
|
Environmental |
Pollution/leakage |
26 (28.9%) |
leachate/air emissions proxies; open dumping/burning incidence; marine litter/leakage estimates. |
|
Social |
Wellbeing/acceptance |
15 (16.7%) |
community acceptance; nuisance perception; quality-of-life proxies; willingness-to-accept/pay. |
|
Social |
Inclusion/livelihoods |
14 (15.6%) |
income stability; inclusion of informal actors; livelihood security; access to services/markets. |
|
Social |
Justice/participation |
9 (10.0%) |
participation rates; perceived fairness; stakeholder voice; procedural justice indicators. |
|
Economic |
Jobs/employment |
7 (7.8%) |
jobs created/lost; labour demand by pathway; wage/income metrics. |
|
Environmental |
Landfill diversion/recycling rate |
2 (2.2%) |
% diverted; recycling/recovery rate; landfill tonnage avoided. |
Table A14. Evidence by mechanism
|
Mechanism |
Studies (n) |
Share of Evidence (%) |
Dominant Primary Strategies |
Env (n) |
Econ (n) |
Soc (n) |
All Three Pillars (n) |
High-Quality (n) |
Moderate-Quality (n) |
Low-Quality (n) |
|
Market formation/value creation |
60 |
66.7 |
Recycling/Material recovery (n = 30); Residual management (n = 13); Reuse (n = 7) |
58 |
60 |
58 |
56 |
23 |
29 |
8 |
|
Leakage reduction |
52 |
57.8 |
Recycling/Material recovery (n = 25); Residual management (n = 13); Organics valorization (n = 6) |
52 |
52 |
51 |
51 |
20 |
26 |
6 |
|
Inclusion/legitimacy |
47 |
52.2 |
Recycling/Material recovery (n = 22); Residual management (n = 12); Organics valorization (n = 5) |
46 |
47 |
44 |
43 |
18 |
20 |
9 |
|
Substitution |
24 |
26.7 |
Recycling/Material recovery (n = 12); Residual management (n = 8); Reuse (n = 2) |
24 |
24 |
23 |
23 |
10 |
12 |
2 |
Table A15. Contextual moderators (MLP lens)
|
MLP Level |
Contextual Moderator |
Studies (n) |
Enabling (+) (n) |
Constraining (−) (n) |
Mixed (n) |
Neutral Mention (n) |
Predominant Direction |
Mechanisms Most Impacted (Top 2; Share Among Studies) |
Most Impacted Outcome Pillars (Inferred) |
|
Regime |
Financing & cost-recovery conditions |
85 |
17 |
7 |
35 |
26 |
Mixed |
Market formation/value creation (69.4%); Leakage reduction (60.0%) |
Environmental; Economic |
|
Regime |
Infrastructure readiness (collection, sorting, treatment) |
79 |
21 |
5 |
29 |
24 |
Mixed |
Market formation/value creation (67.1%); Leakage reduction (58.2%) |
Environmental; Economic |
|
Regime |
Policy stability & enforcement strength |
78 |
16 |
4 |
35 |
23 |
Mixed |
Market formation/value creation (71.8%); Leakage reduction (62.8%) |
Environmental; Economic |
|
Regime |
Data availability & monitoring/ traceability |
66 |
18 |
9 |
10 |
29 |
Mention |
Market formation/value creation (74.2%); Leakage reduction (63.6%) |
Environmental; Economic |
|
Niche |
Technology maturity & operational reliability |
65 |
18 |
7 |
9 |
31 |
Mention |
Leakage reduction (66.2%); Market formation/value creation (63.1%) |
Environmental; Economic |
|
Regime |
Governance capacity & institutional coordination |
61 |
13 |
4 |
14 |
30 |
Mention |
Market formation/value creation (75.4%); Inclusion/ legitimacy (67.2%) |
Economic; Social |
|
Landscape |
Socio-cultural participation norms & acceptance |
51 |
14 |
4 |
13 |
20 |
Mention |
Market formation/value creation (74.5%); Inclusion/legitimacy (74.5%) |
Economic; Social |
|
Regime |
Market maturity for secondary materials & offtake |
46 |
9 |
4 |
6 |
27 |
Mention |
Market formation/value creation (84.8%); Leakage reduction (60.9%) |
Environmental; Economic |
|
Regime |
Informal sector structure & inclusion |
39 |
7 |
3 |
5 |
24 |
Mention |
Inclusion/ legitimacy (89.7%); Market formation/value creation (76.9%) |
Economic; Social |
|
Landscape |
External pressures (climate targets, commodity prices, crises) |
30 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
25 |
Mention |
Leakage reduction (63.3%); Market formation/value creation (63.3%) |
Environmental; Economic |
Table A16. Evidence support for propositions
|
Proposition |
Evidence-Informed Proposition (Summary Statement) |
Boundary Conditions / Moderators (Where the Relationship is Most Likely to Hold) |
Supporting Studies in Included Corpus (n) |
High |
Moderate |
Low |
Weighted Support Index |
Support Level (Within Included Corpus) |
|
P1 |
Recycling/material recovery is associated with improved environmental performance primarily through leakage reduction and/or substitution effects. |
Requires adequate collection coverage, source separation/sorting capacity, and infrastructure readiness to avoid contamination and leakage. |
27 |
10 |
13 |
4 |
20.03 |
Moderate support |
|
P2 |
Organics valorization (compost/AD) is more likely to be associated with joint environmental-economic gains when diversion reduces leakage and valorization creates usable products/energy. |
Contingent on treatment capacity, feedstock quality (separation), and stable demand/offtake for compost/digestate/biogas. |
8 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
6.02 |
Preliminary support |
|
P3 |
Residual-management pathways appear to contribute mainly through leakage reduction (controlled treatment/disposal), with economic viability conditioned by finance and regulatory stability. |
Sensitive to technology reliability and social acceptance; weak legitimacy can limit siting/operation and erode benefits. |
13 |
6 |
6 |
1 |
10.35 |
Preliminary support |
|
P4 |
Market formation/value creation is frequently associated with economic outcomes across CE strategies through cost recovery and end-market stabilization for recovered outputs. |
Stronger where recyclate/energy offtake markets and cost-recovery instruments (fees/tariffs/incentives) are mature. |
60 |
23 |
29 |
8 |
45.07 |
Higher support |
|
P5 |
Inclusion/legitimacy mechanisms (participation, fairness, informal-sector integration, social license) appear pivotal for social outcomes and sustained system performance. |
Most binding for source-separation programs and facility siting; strengthened by awareness/education and procedural justice. |
44 |
18 |
20 |
6 |
33.38 |
Higher support |
|
P6 |
Data availability and monitoring/traceability appear to strengthen both leakage reduction and market formation by improving planning, targeting, and performance management. |
Effects are amplified where data systems are institutionalized (routine reporting, digital tracking) rather than ad hoc. |
56 |
21 |
29 |
6 |
42.41 |
Higher support |
|
P7 |
Governance capacity and enforcement strength appear to condition the effectiveness of CE strategies by enabling compliance and reducing uncontrolled leakage pathways. |
Weak enforcement or fragmented mandates can negate recovery investments, sustaining open dumping/illegal disposal and contamination. |
50 |
20 |
24 |
6 |
38.06 |
Higher support |
|
P8 |
Technology maturity and operational reliability appear to moderate outcomes for treatment-intensive pathways (AD/composting/WtE/RDF), shaping yields, costs, and emissions. |
Benefits are most robust when operations maintain stable feedstock quality and maintenance regimes, and when boundary assumptions are explicit. |
26 |
9 |
13 |
4 |
19.03 |
Moderate support |
Table A17. Sensitivity and robustness results
|
Comparison / Filter |
N |
Recycling Primary (%) |
Env Pillar (%) |
Econ Pillar (%) |
Soc Pillar (%) |
Top Mechanism |
Top Moderator |
Robust Findings Retained? |
What Changes (If Any)? |
|
Baseline (all included studies) |
90 |
44.4 |
87.8 |
81.1 |
73.3 |
Market formation/value creation |
Financing & cost-recovery conditions |
Yes |
— |
|
High-quality studies only |
29 |
44.8 |
96.6 |
89.7 |
89.7 |
Market formation/value creation |
Financing & cost-recovery conditions |
Partly |
pillar imbalance attenuates |
|
High + Moderate quality |
73 |
45.2 |
93.2 |
83.6 |
76.7 |
Market formation/value creation |
Financing & cost-recovery conditions |
Yes |
— |
|
Plastics-focused stream |
13 |
76.9 |
92.3 |
84.6 |
76.9 |
Market formation/value creation |
Financing & cost-recovery conditions |
Partly |
strategy mix shifts |
|
Organics-focused stream |
34 |
20.6 |
91.2 |
88.2 |
82.4 |
Market formation/value creation |
Financing & cost-recovery conditions |
Partly |
strategy mix shifts |
Table A18. Evidence gaps across strategy clusters
|
Strategy Cluster (Primary Focus) |
Studies (n) |
High-Quality Share (%) |
Env Measured (%) |
Econ Measured (%) |
Soc Measured (%) |
All Three Pillars (%) |
Indicator Depth: GHG/Carbon (%) |
Indicator Depth: Costs (%) |
Indicator Depth: OHS (%) |
Indicator Depth: Inclusion (%) |
Indicator Depth: Justice (%) |
Most Common Moderators (Top 2) |
Primary Evidence Gaps (Flags) |
|
Recycling/ Material recovery |
40 |
32.5 |
87.5 |
75.0 |
80.0 |
57.5 |
62.5 |
12.5 |
25.0 |
15.0 |
27.5 |
Financing & cost-recovery conditions (100%); Policy stability & enforcement strength (90%) |
Inclusion metrics scarce |
|
Residual management |
20 |
40.0 |
100.0 |
90.0 |
70.0 |
70.0 |
70.0 |
20.0 |
25.0 |
25.0 |
10.0 |
Infrastructure readiness (collection, sorting, treatment) (100%); Financing & cost-recovery conditions (95%) |
Justice metrics scarce |
|
Organics valorization |
13 |
23.1 |
92.3 |
84.6 |
69.2 |
61.5 |
76.9 |
30.8 |
7.7 |
7.7 |
15.4 |
Financing & cost-recovery conditions (92%); Infrastructure readiness (collection, sorting, treatment) (92%) |
Inclusion metrics scarce; Justice metrics scarce |
|
Reuse |
9 |
33.3 |
66.7 |
77.8 |
66.7 |
33.3 |
11.1 |
11.1 |
33.3 |
11.1 |
22.2 |
Policy stability & enforcement strength (89%); Financing & cost-recovery conditions (78%) |
Climate metrics underused; Inclusion metrics scarce |
|
Prevention |
7 |
28.6 |
85.7 |
100.0 |
71.4 |
71.4 |
42.9 |
14.3 |
14.3 |
0.0 |
14.3 |
Data availability & monitoring/traceability (100%); Financing & cost-recovery conditions (100%) |
Inclusion metrics scarce; Justice metrics scarce |
|
System-wide/ unspecified |
1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Infrastructure readiness (collection, sorting, treatment) (100%); Data availability & monitoring/traceability (0%) |
Social pillar thin; Climate metrics underused; Inclusion metrics scarce; Justice metrics scarce; Few high-quality studies |
[1] Maalouf, A., Mavropoulos, A. (2022). Re-assessing global municipal solid waste generation. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 41(4): 936-947. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221074116
[2] Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J. (2017). The circular economy - A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143: 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
[3] Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127: 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
[4] Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143: 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
[5] Padilla-Rivera, A., Russo-Garrido, S., Merveille, N. (2020). Addressing the social aspects of a circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(19): 7912. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12197912
[6] Elia, V., Gnoni, M.G., Tornese, F. (2024). Integrating circular economy and sustainability assessment on the micro-level: An umbrella review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 50: 405-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.08.012
[7] Ceraso, A., Cesaro, A. (2024). Life cycle sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management systems: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 368: 122143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122143
[8] Iyamu, H.O., Anda, M., Ho, G. (2022). Exploring the multi-level perspective in municipal solid waste management transition. Habitat International, 129: 102664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102664
[9] Reike, D., Vermeulen, W.J.V., Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0? -Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135: 246-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027
[10] Morseletto, P. (2020). Targets for a circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153: 104553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553
[11] Haupt, M., Hellweg, S. (2019). Measuring the environmental sustainability of a circular economy. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 1-2: 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2019.100005
[12] Souza Piao, R., de Vincenzi, T.B., da Silva, A.L.F., de Oliveira, M.C.C., Vazquez-Brust, D., Monteiro Carvalho, M. (2023). How is the circular economy embracing social inclusion? Journal of Cleaner Production, 411: 137340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137340
[13] Valencia, M., Solíz, M.F., Yépez, M. (2023). Waste picking as social provisioning: The case for a fair transition to a circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 398: 136646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136646
[14] Saputra, N., Putera, R.E., Zetra, A., Azwar, A., Valentina, T.R., Mulia, R.A. (2026). Enhancing public management through integrity and organizational citizenship behavior: A systematic review. International Journal of Public Administration: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2026.2614578
[15] Andriyansah, A., Saputra, N. (2025). Product values in the digital era and the quest for sustainable competitive advantage: A bibliometric mapping of trends. International Review of Management and Marketing, 15(6): 252-268. https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.20334
[16] Azwar, A., Saputra, N., Mulia, R.A. (2026). Policy implementation challenges in stunting reduction: A bibliometric analysis of global research trends. Cogent Social Sciences, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2026.2624137
[17] Nubi, O., Murphy, R., Morse, S. (2024). Life cycle sustainability assessment of waste to energy systems in the developing world: A review. Environments, 11(6): 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments11060123
[18] Rapsikevičienė, J., Gurauskienė, I., Jučienė, A. (2019). Model of industrial textile waste management. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 75(1). https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.75.1.21703
[19] Dos Santos, P.S., Campos, L.M.S. (2021). Practices for garment industry's post-consumer textile waste management in the circular economy context: An analysis on literature. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2021.004
[20] Velenturf, A., Purnell, P. (2017). Resource recovery from waste: Restoring the balance between resource scarcity and waste overload. Sustainability, 9(9): 1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091603
[21] Ghinea, C., Ungureanu-Comăniță, E.D., Țăbuleac, R.M., Oprea, P.S., Coșbuc, E.D., Gavrilescu, M. (2025). Cost-benefit analysis of enzymatic hydrolysis alternatives for food waste management. Foods, 14(3): 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14030488
[22] Bokor, B. (2025). Legal analysis of the EU regulatory framework on circular economy and sustainability principles in plastic food packaging. Cleaner Waste Systems, 12: 100412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2025.100412
[23] Weerakoon, T.G., Zvirgzdins, J., Lapuke, S., Wimalasena, S., Drukis, P. (2025). Integrating circular economy (CE) principles into construction waste management (CWM) through multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM). Sustainability, 17(17): 7770. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177770
[24] Balaguera, A., Alberti, J., Carvajal, G.I., Fullana-i-Palmer, P. (2021). Stabilising rural roads with waste streams in Colombia as an environmental strategy based on a life cycle assessment methodology. Sustainability, 13(5): 2458. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052458
[25] Voukkali, I., Papamichael, I., Loizia, P., Zorpas, A.A. (2023). The importance of KPIs to calibrate waste strategy in hospitality sector. Energy Nexus, 11: 100211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100211
[26] Mihalčová, B., Korauš, A., Prokopenko, O., Hvastová, J., Freňáková, M., Gallo, P., Balogová, B. (2021). Effective management tools for solving the problem of poverty in relation to food waste in context of integrated management of energy. Energies, 14(14): 4245. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144245
[27] Roy, P., Mohanty, A.K., Dick, P., Misra, M. (2023). A review on the challenges and choices for food waste valorization: Environmental and economic impacts. ACS Environmental Au, 3(2): 58-75. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenvironau.2c00050
[28] Marika, G., Beatrice, M., Francesca, A. (2021). Adaptive reuse and sustainability protocols in Italy: Relationship with circular economy. Sustainability, 13(14): 8077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148077
[29] Polman, D. (2025). Policymaking for circular urban food systems: A systematic literature review of policy instruments and governance arrangements. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 17(11): 100250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rspp.2025.100250
[30] Milios, L., Esmailzadeh Davani, A., Yu, Y. (2018). Sustainability impact assessment of increased plastic recycling and future pathways of plastic waste management in Sweden. Recycling, 3(3): 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3030033
[31] Isernia, R., Passaro, R., Quinto, I., Thomas, A. (2019). The reverse supply chain of the e-waste management processes in a circular economy framework: Evidence from Italy. Sustainability, 11(8): 2430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082430
[32] Taelman, S., Tonini, D., Wandl, A., Dewulf, J. (2018). A holistic sustainability framework for waste management in European cities: Concept development. Sustainability, 10(7): 2184. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072184
[33] Manoharan, S., Kumar Pulimi, V.S., Kabir, G., Ali, S.M. (2022). Contextual relationships among drivers and barriers to circular economy: An integrated ISM and DEMATEL approach. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3: 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2021.09.003
[34] Tomov, M., Velkoska, C. (2022). Contribution of the quality costs to sustainable development. Production Engineering Archives, 28(2): 164-171. https://doi.org/10.30657/pea.2022.28.19
[35] Stankevičienė, J., Nikanorova, M. (2020). Eco-innovation as a pillar for sustainable development of circular economy. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(2): 531-544. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.12963
[36] Al-Thani, N.A., Al-Ansari, T., Haouari, M. (2022). Integrated TOPSIS-COV approach for selecting a sustainable PET waste management technology: A case study in Qatar. Heliyon, 8(8): e10274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10274
[37] Gangwar, P., Narain, A., Saini, A., Mitra, D., Karmakar, R., Assefa, A. (2025). Sustainable approaches to solar photovoltaic waste management under environmental uncertainty. Discover Environment, 3:227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-025-00440-2
[38] Ivanović, N., Vučinić, A., Marinković, V., Krajnović, D., Ćurčić, M. (2025). Towards sustainable food waste management in Serbia: A review of challenges, gaps, and future perspectives. Sustainability, 17(7): 2961. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072961
[39] Almansour, M., Akrami, M. (2024). Towards zero waste: An in-depth analysis of national policies, strategies, and case studies in waste minimisation. Sustainability, 16(22): 10105. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210105
[40] Huang, Y., Shafiee, M., Charnley, F., Encinas-Oropesa, A. (2022). Designing a framework for materials flow by integrating circular economy principles with end-of-life management strategies. Sustainability, 14(7): 4244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074244
[41] Ponnambalam, S.G., Sankaranarayanan, B., Karuppiah, K., Thinakaran, S., Chandravelu, P., Lam, H.L. (2023). Analysing the barriers involved in recycling the textile waste in India using fuzzy DEMATEL. Sustainability, 15(11): 8864. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118864
[42] Kowalski, Z., Kulczycka, J., Makara, A., Verhé, R., De Clercq, G. (2022). Assessment of energy recovery from municipal waste management systems using circular economy quality indicators. Energies, 15(22): 8625. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228625
[43] Smol, M., Marcinek, P., Duda, J., Szołdrowska, D. (2020). Importance of sustainable mineral resource management in implementing the circular economy (CE) model and the European Green Deal strategy. Resources, 9(5): 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/RESOURCES9050055
[44] Farshadfar, Z., Mucha, T., Tanskanen, K. (2024). Leveraging machine learning for advancing circular supply chains: A systematic literature review. Logistics, 8(4): 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8040108
[45] Battiston, E., Ren, J., Mazzi, A. (2025). Sustainable circularity performance indicators to optimize waste management at company level. Sustainable Futures, 10: 100897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100897
[46] Zervoudi, E.K., Christopoulos, A.G., Niotis, I. (2025). Food waste and the three pillars of sustainability: Economic, environmental and social perspectives from Greece's food service and retail sectors. Sustainability, 17(22): 9954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17229954
[47] Toboso-Chavero, S., Zisopoulos, F.K., de Jong, M., Schraven, D. (2025). Critical review of methodological tools and trends for assessing the performance of inclusive circular cities. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 17: 100275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2025.100275
[48] Boschi, G., Masi, G., Bonvicini, G., Bignozzi, M.C. (2020). Sustainability in Italian ceramic tile production: Evaluation of the environmental impact. Applied Sciences, 10(24): 9063. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10249063
[49] Arroyo, J., Pillajo, C., Barrio, J., Compais, P., Tavares, V.D. (2024). Deep learning techniques for enhanced flame monitoring in cement rotary kilns using petcoke and refuse-derived fuel (RDF). Sustainability, 16(16): 6862. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166862
[50] Bruni, C., Akyol, Ç., Cipolletta, G., Eusebi, A.L., Caniani, D., Masi, S., Colón, J., Fatone, F. (2020). Decentralized community composting: Past, present and future aspects of Italy. Sustainability, 12(8): 3319. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12083319
[51] Al-Sharif, M., Geldermans, B., Rinke, M. (2024). From waste to wealth: A study of concrete recycling in Jordan. Frontiers in Sustainability, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2024.1398918
[52] Esposito, L., Accardo, F., Prandi, B., Tedeschi, T. (2025). How food wastes can be converted into new products: European legislation and analysis of enzymatic hydrolysis. New Biotechnology, 90: 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2025.09.005
[53] Xames, M.D., Topcu, T.G. (2025). How can digital twins support the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of healthcare systems: A systematic review focused on the triple bottom line. IEEE Access, 13: 64390-64411. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3559502
[54] Geels, F.W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9): 1257-1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
[55] Srećković, M., Hartmann, D., Schützenhofer, S., Kotecki, A. (2024). Bridging theory and practice: Stakeholder insights on circular economy in the building life cycle. Energy Reports, 12: 3291-3301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2024.09.014
[56] Makan, A., Salama, Y., Mamouni, F.Z., Makan, M. (2025). Towards zero-waste cities: An integrated and circular approach to sustainable solid waste management. Sustainability, 17(17): 7884. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177884
[57] Polat, E.G., Derse, O. (2025). Evaluation of implementation strategies in the context of zero-waste city and circular economy concept. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 24(7): 1475-1489. https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2025.115
[58] Ibrahim, H.Z., Alqahtani, M.H. (2025). Frameworks and implementation strategies for sustainable waste-to-energy alternatives: A study using bipolar complex intuitionistic fuzzy-based multi-attribute decision-making. AIMS Mathematics, 10(11): 25085-25136. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.20251111
[59] Hong, Q.N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O'Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.C., Vedel, I., Pluye, P. (2018). The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4): 285-291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221
[60] Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa