Critical review of methodological tools and trends for assessing the performance of inclusive circular cities

IF 6.1 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Susana Toboso-Chavero , Filippos K. Zisopoulos , Martin de Jong , Daan Schraven
{"title":"Critical review of methodological tools and trends for assessing the performance of inclusive circular cities","authors":"Susana Toboso-Chavero ,&nbsp;Filippos K. Zisopoulos ,&nbsp;Martin de Jong ,&nbsp;Daan Schraven","doi":"10.1016/j.cesys.2025.100275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The comprehensive sustainability assessment of urban waste management systems (UWMSs) is crucial for understanding the impact of current and future city strategies aimed at improving circularity and inclusion in cities. In this study we propose a framework for conceptualizing the inclusive circular city (ICC), and we review specifically scientific literature on methodological tools and trends in integrated sustainability assessments (ISAs) of UWMSs. Of the 145 publications reviewed, only 10 % concurrently evaluated social, environmental, and economic aspects, and just 2 % incorporated circularity and inclusion metrics. Publications focusing simultaneously either on social and environmental dimensions or economic and environmental dimensions accounted for 3 % and 17 % of studies, respectively, while 70 % adopted a single-dimensional approach. A notable proportion of studies focused exclusively on environmental impact assessment, predominantly employing life cycle assessment or indicators such as carbon footprint. Social assessments were notably less prevalent, comprising only 20 % of studies. Stakeholder engagement and inclusion metrics were considered in 20 % and 5 % of the publications, respectively. In terms of R strategies, 65 % of the studies concentrated on recycling and recovery, targeting mainly municipal solid waste. To advance our knowledge on ISAs of UWMSs and improve our understanding of their embeddedness in ICCs, future research should: (a) focus on multidimensional, transdisciplinary assessments with an emphasis on strong sustainability-oriented methodologies by including circularity and inclusion metrics; (b) prioritize inclusion and active stakeholder participation in collaborative knowledge creation; and (c) shift the focus from conventional waste recycling and recovery to ambitious circular strategies that retain resources in closed-loop systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34616,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Environmental Systems","volume":"17 ","pages":"Article 100275"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Environmental Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789425000212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The comprehensive sustainability assessment of urban waste management systems (UWMSs) is crucial for understanding the impact of current and future city strategies aimed at improving circularity and inclusion in cities. In this study we propose a framework for conceptualizing the inclusive circular city (ICC), and we review specifically scientific literature on methodological tools and trends in integrated sustainability assessments (ISAs) of UWMSs. Of the 145 publications reviewed, only 10 % concurrently evaluated social, environmental, and economic aspects, and just 2 % incorporated circularity and inclusion metrics. Publications focusing simultaneously either on social and environmental dimensions or economic and environmental dimensions accounted for 3 % and 17 % of studies, respectively, while 70 % adopted a single-dimensional approach. A notable proportion of studies focused exclusively on environmental impact assessment, predominantly employing life cycle assessment or indicators such as carbon footprint. Social assessments were notably less prevalent, comprising only 20 % of studies. Stakeholder engagement and inclusion metrics were considered in 20 % and 5 % of the publications, respectively. In terms of R strategies, 65 % of the studies concentrated on recycling and recovery, targeting mainly municipal solid waste. To advance our knowledge on ISAs of UWMSs and improve our understanding of their embeddedness in ICCs, future research should: (a) focus on multidimensional, transdisciplinary assessments with an emphasis on strong sustainability-oriented methodologies by including circularity and inclusion metrics; (b) prioritize inclusion and active stakeholder participation in collaborative knowledge creation; and (c) shift the focus from conventional waste recycling and recovery to ambitious circular strategies that retain resources in closed-loop systems.

Abstract Image

对评估包容性循环城市绩效的方法工具和趋势进行批判性审查
城市废物管理系统(UWMSs)的综合可持续性评估对于理解旨在改善城市循环性和包容性的当前和未来城市战略的影响至关重要。在本研究中,我们提出了一个概念化包容性循环城市(ICC)的框架,并特别回顾了关于城市综合可持续性评估(ISAs)的方法工具和趋势的科学文献。在被审查的145份出版物中,只有10%同时评估了社会、环境和经济方面,只有2%纳入了循环性和包容性指标。同时关注社会和环境维度或经济和环境维度的出版物分别占研究的3%和17%,而70%采用单一维度的方法。相当一部分研究专门侧重于环境影响评价,主要采用生命周期评价或碳足迹等指标。社会评估明显不那么普遍,仅占研究的20%。分别在20%和5%的出版物中考虑了利益相关者参与和包容性指标。在R策略方面,65%的研究集中在循环利用和回收,主要针对城市固体废物。为了提高我们对UWMSs的isa的认识,并提高我们对其在ICCs中的嵌入性的理解,未来的研究应该:(a)通过包括循环和包容指标,将重点放在多维、跨学科的评估上,强调以强有力的可持续性为导向的方法;(b)优先考虑包容和利益相关者积极参与协作知识创造;(c)将重点从传统的废物回收和回收转移到雄心勃勃的循环战略,将资源保留在闭环系统中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cleaner Environmental Systems
Cleaner Environmental Systems Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
52 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信