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 , Filippos K. Zisopoulos , Martin de Jong , 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.