Introduction

While waste pollution, socio-economic development, and climate change present urgent challenges for urban areas, centralised infrastructures and top-down decision making are unlikely to deliver fair and rapid revitalisation of jurisdictions lacking formal waste management systems and adequate financial resources1. In such communities, policy and infrastructure responses to waste challenges risk excluding the interests of marginalised social groups, where the informal waste and recovery sector contributes significantly to the recovery of recyclable materials2. These urgent challenges are present in Bandung Raya (Metropolitan Area), the third most populous area in Java, Indonesia3. In 2023, an exponential increase in waste disposal and a fire outbreak meant a central landfill site was unable to service the region4, prompting city and regency government to commit to significantly reducing waste disposal5,6. Local waste management nevertheless remains challenging due to limited disposal sites, a lack of funding for infrastructure and operational costs, limited income for waste workers, and low-value material volumes including flexible plastics and kitchen waste7,8.

Circular economy (CE) offers a potentially radical vision for urban systems change to reconfigure dominant and unsustainable regimes of resource extraction and consumerism, while delivering economic benefits9. However, this vision raises questions about the participation and empowerment of marginalised and vulnerable communities and social groups in the process10. CE has diverse conceptual roots but has been popularised in policy discourse and business strategy over the last decade, most notably by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) whose definitions of CE are widely cited11. The EMF12 (founded in 2009) currently defines CE as:

“a system where materials never become waste and nature is regenerated. In a circular economy, products and materials are kept in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting. The circular economy tackles climate change and other global challenges, like biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution, by decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite resources.”

Recent critiques of CE highlight challenges and limitations of the concept and its potential for disrupting dominant resource consumption regimes of take-make-dispose. Many academic, government, and practitioner applications of CE are top-down and skewed towards technological disciplines and business perspectives13. In this way, CE discourse tends towards reformist agendas which overlook the structures and cultures of market-led, growth-oriented, and individualised consumption and production regimes which have driven ecological crises13,14 and socio-economic inequalities11. In response, scholars draw attention to the complex and contextual socio-cultural conditions of CE transitions10,14,15,16 and the role of people and communities as change agents in shifts to alternative socio-material relations17.

More broadly, scholars argue for greater recognition of diverse Global South perspectives as legitimate and valuable contributions to knowledge and practice, with relevance beyond these geographies10. Global South is a much-used term in political and academic discourse to denote shared experiences of structural marginalisation, however its generic and superficial use has drawn controversy and debate18,19. Equally, Global South is an important discursive category for CE research to problematize “universal framings of waste” in light of colonial legacies in particular territories, including infrastructural and fiscal constraints and exclusion of marginalised social groups1. As a whole of systems change targeting deeply entrenched social behaviours and inflexible technical structures, CE is very hard to achieve, even in the most advanced economies with access to significant resources. While CE approaches are further compromised by a lack of resources in the Global South, these contexts nonetheless offer greater opportunity to leapfrog20 to more advanced CE structures, including by recognising the possibilities for alternative systems in existing (informal) practices2.

Sustainability transitions and participatory design perspectives21,22,23,24 offer a way to build on these critiques by exploring alternative approaches to CE with the potential for transformative outcomes that (1) develop within and challenge prevailing social, institutional, and material structures in a way that generates desirable social and environmental pathways; and (2) empower marginalised people and communities through place-based, participatory, and experimental design and implementation of circular waste infrastructures and institutions, informed by diverse (local) knowledges and perspectives. The research question that this paper asks is: what actionable, transformative principles can guide CE transitions research and practice in vulnerable and marginalised communities? We address this question through abductive research involving an iterative process, starting with an initial set of principles from existing literature on CE, sustainability transitions, and participatory design. We then explored their relevance in Global South contexts by comparing, contrasting, and refining the principles based on a review of existing evidence of these kinds of transformations in the context of circular waste management in urban and peri-urban areas in the Global South. Ultimately, the paper proposes 10 transformative principles for CE transitions which are supported by evidence from 33 circular and other waste-related empirical cases in existing literature. The empirical cases were purposively sampled from a wide range of literature, including those that explicitly use the term CE and those that use the term ‘waste management’ yet exhibit circularity practices (excluding landfill and incineration). We included the latter since we acknowledge that there are empirical cases that exhibit circularity practices and could enrich discourse in CE, especially situated in the Global South, yet are not situated within the mainstream CE discourse.

While few pioneering contributions have started to develop principles for CE25, by our knowledge, this is the first study to draw on CE, sustainability transitions, and participatory design literatures to develop a transformative approach to CE in vulnerable and marginalised communities. Based on this review, we synthesise how we apply and integrate these principles in a live action research project that the authors are involved in. In doing so, the paper moves beyond existing critiques of mainstream visions of a CE and provides an evidence-based set of principles for a transformative approach to CE implementation in marginalised communities.

Results

Transformative Principles for Circular Economy Transitions in the Global South

The results of our scoping review of empirical cases on (circular) waste management initiatives in Global South settings provide evidence of conditions, challenges, and opportunities for transformative change. In the following, each principle (summarised in Fig. 1) is described with reference to scholarly literature and illustrated with common insights from existing empirical cases identified in purposive sampling of the literature (see Supplementary Table 1 for a summary of each case). These insights explore transformative CE approaches and conditions in research and practice in Global South settings (see Fig. 2). We complement these insights by presenting how these principles are operationalised to guide the Citarum Action Research Program (CARP), a live action research project in Indonesia.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Full size image

10 Transformative Principles for Circular Economy Transitions in the Global South, drawing on CE, sustainability transitions, and participatory design literatures.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Full size image

Map of countries represented by the empirical cases in the literature review sample, highlighted in blue. In alphabetical order, the cases span Argentina, Brazil, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Peru, The Philippines, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam. Note: One additional case involves a network operating across Latin America and the Caribbean, not shown. Map created with mapchart.net and reproduced under CC BY-SA 4.0 license89.

Ensure products and materials remain in use (1)

Maintaining the value of products and materials once resources are in use is a central CE objective. Avoiding, maintaining, upgrading, and creating new functions for objects may be achieved through user choices (refuse, reduce, re-sell/re-use), product upgrades (repair, re-furbish, re-manufacture), and downcycling (re-purpose, re-cycle, recover (energy), re-mine), enabled by sustainable product design, infrastructure and services provision, and sharing models that prioritise short, high value resource loops14,26.

Existing case studies suggest that the financial viability of waste reuse systems is key. Reliable access to materials is needed to ensure stable income streams for recycling cooperatives27 and individuals selling products28. Credits for food, cleaning products, mobile phone use, and other necessities incentivise low-income households to participate in solid waste recycling (e.g. in Nigeria29 and Indonesia28). Conversely, waste transportation from source to treatment sites add a premium to sale of products like compost30, and costs of third-party services (such as for equipment) can be prohibitive31. New initiatives can be undermined by the ability of waste collectors to sell materials at higher prices elsewhere32, and minimum material volumes for commercial scale processing which exclude neighbourhood waste facilities28. The value of waste materials is affected by the scale at which they can be collected, the location and options for downstream processing (e.g. plastic food packaging with laminate are less valuable for recycling due to limited recycling options31), and the presence of hazardous materials (e.g. in e-waste29 and human excreta-derived fertiliser30) that require regulation and governance capacity.

Avoid and reduce resource extraction and GHG emissions (2)

This principle orients CE objectives to the root causes of waste and pollution resulting from resource consumption in general and fossil fuel consumption in particular13,14,25. Without reducing the overall consumption of raw and petroleum-based plastic materials in the economy, and prioritising renewable energy, CE initiatives are unlikely to result in a net environmental benefit. Instead, CE may increase the demand for waste as an input resource or for fossil fuel energy (e.g. for recycling), thus exacerbating climate change13,33. Hence, assessment of CE outcomes must consider material flows and trade-offs (e.g. in land use, or unforeseen impacts of product durability) across space and time14,34,35.

Empirical cases illustrate how substitution, sharing, and behaviour change minimise raw materials consumption across value chains through demand reduction. In production processes, raw materials are avoided through the substitution of chemical agriculture products with organic compost36, chemical-based building materials with recycled PET bottles and natural fibre sourced from agricultural waste37, and LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) with biogas made from organic waste38. For individuals and enterprises, sharing economy models enable reduced use of plastics and other materials39. Awareness raising programs have also been undertaken to shift consumption practices (e.g. in an Algerian refugee camp40.

Regenerate natural systems (3)

Regenerative natural systems focus on the continuous return of nutrients and organic materials to the biosphere and restoration of ecosystems and landscapes harmed by resource extraction and pollution. This approach includes the use of biological material and renewable energy substitutes in agriculture and industrial processes, and management of organic waste to avoid methane emissions and associated hazards41,42. This perspective encourages systemic CE innovations that support, respond to, and mimic biological forms and ecological systems, recognising the fundamental interconnections of people and nature and the planetary boundaries conducive to life43,44. Nature-based solutions exemplify how ecological systems (such as wetlands) are constructed to address environmental contamination (such as water pollution45 in a way that restores biodiversity and generates ecosystem services (such as cooling46 in urban areas.

Existing literature demonstrates how organic materials are circulated and returned to the biosphere by connecting different spheres of economic activity. For instance, organic waste is collected from local households and businesses and composted to maintain an urban forest tourist site in Bali, Indonesia32 and food-producing community gardens in Brazil47. In other cases, organic waste is processed into biomass products (e.g. in the Philippines48, Guatemala49, and Nepal38). These processes benefit from certification and standardisation50 and a steady supply of materials to ensure product quality30. Conversely, there are social barriers to wider acceptance and commercialisation of organic materials. These challenges include concern about possible odour (e.g. in Bali, Indonesia31), and cultural and religious beliefs against the use of biogas made from manure and excreta to cook food for religious rituals (e.g. in Nepal38). Taking a place-based, integrative approach to environmental regeneration, water supply, and human health that is co-developed with local community members is beneficial for cultivating community ownership and benefits (e.g. in Makassar, Indonesia51.

Contribute to local economic development (4)

Transformative CE transitions aim to improve social equity and human health by focusing on local economic development through recycling and bio-based production activities. Local waste management business models include municipal services funded through property taxes; decentralised models involving exchange of waste for credits (savings-and-loan schemes) or direct provision of goods and services (including healthcare)28,52; sufficiency models where revenues fund employee salaries36; and other for-profit private enterprises, including social enterprises aiming to generate financial and other social benefits for the community50. Livelihood opportunities in CE should be considered in terms of quality, longevity, and distribution, as well as potential disruptions to existing livelihoods10.

The potential for increased income at the individual, household, and community scales as a result of (circular) waste initiatives is well recognized29,30,31,36,48,53. Increased economic participation through waste initiatives has targeted women (e.g. in Pune, India54, Jakarta, Indonesia55, and Belo Horizonte, Brazil56, people with disabilities (e.g. in Vietnam57, and unemployed youth (e.g. in Peru58, while publicly stigmatised waste pickers have benefited from worker rights and social status (e.g. in India54 and Nicaragua53). In addition, income from waste services has been reinvested at the neighbourhood scale in public social activities (in Indonesia28 and Brazil47). Beyond these direct and indirect financial outcomes, waste initiatives support local economic development through improved working conditions, such as safer handling of hazardous materials (e.g. in Nigeria29), equipment and services suitable for people with physical disabilities (e.g. in Vietnam57), and provision of healthcare (e.g. in Pune, India54).

Several caveats are presented in current studies. Employment outcomes are not always localised; in Bali32 for example, this is due to competition with local tourism industries. New formalised schemes can disrupt income streams for informal waste pickers by creating competition for valuable waste59 (e.g. in Jakarta, Indonesia55) and can contribute to the ‘double burden’ of productive and unpaid care labour undertaken by women55. Informal waste workers may lack capacity and support to negotiate fair employment arrangements29, necessitating intermediation (e.g. by religious groups in Belo Horizonte, Brazil56). Moreover, there are potential harms associated with physical labour, failure to use personal protective equipment (PPE), and waste processing facilities (ventilation, lighting, odour)31.

Take a long-term perspective on outcomes and impact (5)

A long-term perspective reflects the timescale required for integrated, impactful systems change60,61,62. CE innovations that commodify waste or use waste for new products (such as food waste) may address immediate needs for waste management but should ultimately be phased out to avoid encouraging unsustainable waste streams (e.g. overproduction of food)33. In the Global South, waste and CE interventions often emerge in response to immediate challenges faced by local actors37,53 and possibly overlooking (unwanted) long-term impact. Prioritising long-term visions is important to centre broader environmental and social outcomes of circular waste systems and help to avoid lock-in of short-term solutions to waste challenges.

Taking a long-term perspective is also crucial in terms of the longevity of CE initiatives, as many projects develop incrementally. Challenges to longevity include funding (e.g. for operations and maintenance in Bali32, Uganda63, and for expanding production and application of solutions in Guatemala49), weak institutionalisation of CE practices (e.g. ensuring development outcomes for poor women through policy changes55), limited consideration of broader social trends and uncertainties related to waste and consumption (e.g. considering livestock availability and migration38), and building local capacity to support waste worker participation27.

Take an integrated, whole-systems approach (6)

A whole-systems approach including social, economic, technological, institutional and behavioural aspects is necessary to achieve circularity and longevity25,64,65. Outcomes and risks of CE interventions must go beyond single technologies or organisations because of the potential for unsustainable inputs, outputs, and other barriers across supply chains and between industries or spheres of practice at different scales (such as increased energy demand, greenhouse gas emissions, and social acceptability34,39). Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives are valuable for dealing with the complexity of systems change in real world contexts66,67.

Some organisations take a systemic approach to services provision, such as sanitation companies that provide toilets, collect and treat excreta, and sell the resulting fertiliser (e.g. in Haiti and Kenya30 and Guatemala49), and waste cooperatives that collect, sort, process, and sell waste products (e.g. in Londrina, Brazil31). National government policy has sought to facilitate the decline of incumbent waste systems and mainstreaming of new systems (e.g. for municipal waste management in Brazil56 and Nicaragua68. In other cases, different forms of knowledge and data are brought to bear on waste challenges. Examples include investigations spanning material flows, financial sustainability, and stakeholder analysis (in Busia, Uganda63), and waste processing, architectural design, and energy efficiency (in Nigeria37).

Cultivate collective action among multiple actors (7)

Cultivating collective action among all relevant people, the community, and professional actors is a vital precondition for effective CE transitions. Collective action is understood in terms of how diverse stakeholders engage with each other, such as through partnerships, shared visions, network governance, and industrial symbiosis15,61,69,70. CE transitions necessitate mobilisation and coordination of policy and regulation, investment, education and knowledge sharing, design and engineering, infrastructure provision, and environmental stewardship across public, private, and civil sectors.

Cross-sector partnerships are evident across the literature on waste and CE in the Global South. Local waste initiatives often bridge formal (e.g. local government, business, NGOs) and informal (e.g. waste pickers, collectors, recyclers, and dealers) spheres such as in Ghana71, Argentina27, Brazil31,72, Nicaragua53, the Philippines48, India54, and Kenya68. Data on informal waste management can help to legitimise the role and expertise of informal workers in the transition (a focus of the regional waste picker alliance in Latin America68). Government partnerships have supported grassroots organisations with funding (e.g. in Londrina, Brazil for collection services, PPE and uniforms, and social security31) and access to land and facilities (e.g. for a youth group in Nairobi73. Coordination of multiple actors is enabled by institutions, social infrastructures, and intermediaries, such as national solid waste policy31, management councils72, digital resource exchange platforms29, and program partnership coordinators54. Effective collaboration and project continuity are both underpinned by and further cultivates (existing) relationships, trust, shared commitments to social and environmental outcomes and mutual benefit, and recognition of the heterogeneity of local communities28,47,52,53,72. Effective partnerships benefit from broad engagement, including with local residents who have negative perceptions of waste initiatives (as in Thailand36 and Brazil47). Consistent, ongoing maintenance of relationships54 helps to avoid exclusion and social conflict28.

Enable social learning through place-based experimentation (8)

Enabling social learning is key for effective transitions to CE systems over the long-term74,75. Place-based experimentation is an approach to addressing implementation knowledge gaps through real-world testing, learning, and iteration of delivery models in collaboration with diverse stakeholders, embedded in place-based, multi-scalar environmental, social, and economic contexts10,76,77,78.

Examples include collaboration between community members, local groups, and the municipal government to develop and test new-in-context waste management systems and interventions, such as in Busia, Uganda63 and Makassar, Indonesia51. In São Paulo (Brazil)72, participatory dialogue, brainstorming, and reflection between waste workers, government, NGOs, and businesses included a focus on resource governance as well as consideration of broader social issues (such as gender, inequity, and power). These processes were supported by documentation protocols for meetings and events, collection of quantitative and qualitative waste data and related policies, and periodic dissemination of bilingual newsletters. Place-based transdisciplinary research explicitly addresses local needs and aspirations through future visioning with stakeholders (as in Accra, Ghana71) and iterative, participatory design (as in Nairobi73). Localised recycling initiatives can have wider impacts where participants subsequently pursue their own enterprises and become active in local policy-making (as in Jakarta, Indonesia55).

Share power in decision-making and implementation (9)

Power sharing in decision making and implementation ensures community engagement in and co-ownership of processes and outcomes, including visions, objectives, strategies, and actions. This process legitimises participants as “knowledge creator[s] and expert[s]”10 and recognises the value of social innovation22. This, in turn, supports greater autonomy for and empowerment of marginalised social groups, including workers, households, and women.

Longstanding grassroots actions and traditions demonstrate the existing local capabilities in waste management from which CE initiatives can build. Existing practices include making (e.g. in Nigeria37 and Ghana71), hacking (e.g. in Indonesia28,55) and repairing (e.g. in Kenya79 and Malawi39). Households and grassroots groups self-organise to collect and manage solid waste and recyclables in the context of a lack of public services and formal recycling facilities, including in informal settlements29,53,58, remote rural areas39, and low-income communities52.

Existing research highlights the value of self-determination for (informal) waste workers and other stakeholders. Through cooperative ownership and participatory processes, including representative councils, workshops, and meetings, informal waste workers participate in the formalisation of municipal waste management54,72. Waste worker agency is important for ensuring mutually beneficial agreements in CE system implementation27. Participatory project management structures can also shift decision-making power, such as in action research projects where representatives of waste worker cooperatives are involved as lead investigators and co-developers of solutions (e.g. in São Paulo, Brazil27), and projects involving youth in project design, planning, and management (e.g. in Nairobi73). At the same time, participatory processes need to consider power imbalances that risk exploitation, such as between poor and middle-class women55, or between (government) asset owners and (industry) funders and waste facility operators27.

Build capacity of individuals and communities (10)

Building on grassroots capabilities, successful CE transitions require increased local capacity of individuals, communities, and professional actors to meaningfully engage in, own, operate, maintain, and expand CE pilots, and ultimately shape desirable systems change.

Documented waste initiatives have incorporated skills development and education for residents, workers, and marginalised social groups at the community scale to leverage and mobilise local capacities. Programs cultivate technical skills and understanding of waste segregation (e.g. in Pune, India54), making handicrafts (e.g. in Surabaya, Indonesia28), composting (e.g. for farmers in Kenya30), safe waste handling and remanufacturing (e.g. in Accra, Ghana71), management (e.g. in Londrina, Brazil31 and Kisumu, Kenya68), and marketing (e.g. in Nairobi73). Social skills are equally important for women workers in particular, including negotiation (e.g. in Jakarta, Indonesia55), political participation (e.g. in Pune, India54), and creativity (e.g. in Jakarta, Indonesia55). Capacity building also involves making tools and resources accessible, such as a mobile app for information sharing and facility designs for construction (e.g. in Accra, Ghana71).

Integrating 10 Transformative CE Principles in the Citarum Action Research Program (CARP)

CARP80 is an applied research program focused on addressing pollution and revitalising the Citarik River in the Citarum basin in West Java, Indonesia at the village scale (Fig. 3). Through improved waste management and ecological health, the program aims to achieve social, environmental, and economic development outcomes for local communities.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Full size image

Map of the Citarum Basin in West Java, Indonesia with the CARP Demonstration Site located in red, reproduced under CC BY license90 from Hadfield et al.91.

The transformative principles for CE transitions outlined in this paper (referred to as p#) are guiding our program through the following key strategies:

  1. 1.

    Develop and restore facilities and systems to remove, sort, collect, and process solid waste, including monitoring and evaluation of the financial viability of new local enterprises and industries (p1, p6, p8).

  2. 2.

    Select waste processing infrastructures that minimise energy consumption and GHG emissions, and explore pathways to phase out landfilling, incineration, and single-use plastics (p2).

  3. 3.

    Develop an integrated landscape masterplan for the restoration of waterways, riparian zones, forests, and productive landscapes impacted by urbanisation and pollution, incorporating near-term actions including the closure of organic waste loops through improved collection, treatment, and production of organic products for peri-urban farming, and nature-based solutions to wastewater treatment, flooding, and biodiversity conservation (p3, p5).

  4. 4.

    Understand and prioritise the potential social, economic, and community benefits of CE for local villagers, including waste workers, such as income-generation and ecotourism opportunities highlighted by government and community stakeholders (p4, p7).

  5. 5.

    Develop a 30-year masterplan and five-year action plan for river revitalisation in the project site oriented towards ecological health, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and community participation and wellbeing, to balance learning about and addressing immediate needs of local communities for basic infrastructure provision with long-term sustainable development imperatives (p5, p6).

  6. 6.

    Design a systematic circular waste pilot that spans different types of waste (plastic and organic) and multiple spheres of practice—from household waste sorting, to collection, processing, and sale of goods—from multiple disciplinary perspectives, including design, environmental modelling, engineering, and social sciences (p6, p8).

  7. 7.

    Establish CARP as a transdisciplinary and intermediary platform for engagement with diverse actors, including domestic and international academics, multilevel government agencies, businesses, media, community organisations, and residents (including through formal partnership agreements with government and universities) (p7, p9).

  8. 8.

    Co-develop, test, and learn from implementation of different approaches with local partners and stakeholders through pilots; evidence, insights, lessons, and recommendations will inform and guide the scaling up of CE across the region (p7, p8).

  9. 9.

    Place-based co-design of program visions and CE pilots with a range of local stakeholders and residents (including focus group discussions and spatial/systems mapping) to draw on local knowledges, identify community preferences, and validate and contextualise government priorities and project expertise (see Figs. 4 and 5) (p8, p9).

  10. 10.

    Build on existing practices and knowledge of resource recovery undertaken by informal waste workers, enable two-way learning through co-design activities (including developing awareness and understanding of environmental challenges and risks), and support local partners to educate households on behaviour change (such as waste sorting) (p9, p10).

Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Full size image

Focus group discussion on local waste management with village stakeholders at a workshop facilitated by Monash University and Universitas Indonesia in a community building in June 2022 (Source: Taufik 2022).

Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Full size image

Participatory design workshop with village stakeholders, facilitated by Monash University and Universitas Indonesia with Studio Lawang in a community hall in July 2023 (Source: Hadfield 2023).

Discussion

For transformative social and environmental outcomes to be realised, the complexity and multiplicity of CE transitions demonstrated by the empirical cases requires consideration. We acknowledge that valuable insights and voices may be excluded in this review due to Western-oriented scholarly practice privileging English language studies (which this paper relies on). Further empirical investigation of how the 10 principles shape the design and outcomes of place-based, real-world CE experiments, including dynamics between principles (moderating factors, tensions), across different geographies and at different scales, will be insightful. We highlight cross-cutting insights from the scoping review below.

From the outset, this scoping review recognises that practices reflecting the spirit of transformative CE are not always framed as ‘CE’ in existing studies on waste management. This review underscores the value of rich qualitative analysis for understanding the directionality of CE transitions and effective implementation of CE solutions, and the value of an expansive conceptualisation of CE that accounts for the breadth of existing and historical practices and knowledges. Inter- and transdisciplinarity is encouraged to balance technical and social science disciplines and sectors, including participatory design and transition management approaches, and thus address the technocratic or techno-managerial bias in CE literature to date13,14,15. Importantly, examination of CE in Global South settings requires understanding both the common characteristics distinguishing these settings from the Global North (such as colonial legacies, infrastructure deficit, and significant informal sectors1,2,10), and the uniqueness and situatedness of CE practices identified in different Global South settings. It is thus from these situated and heterogeneous cases (across 18 countries and a range of urban/peri-urban contexts) that the paper draws out common qualities and processes to establish guiding principles for transformative change.

CE practices emerge in the context of existing formal and informal practices of local waste management and circular practices such as sharing and repair81 which pre-date current conceptualisations of CE10. Individuals and communities engage with waste flows as an essential source of livelihood and affordable access to resources, albeit labour and time-intensive. CE transitions are thus necessarily deeply intertwined with local economic conditions and wellbeing and come with associated risks in terms of employment (particularly for low-income communities and marginalised actors29,36,50,57,73), and health and wellbeing (e.g. exposure to hazards36,38 and access to local food47). CE interventions can disrupt existing socio-economic dynamics in communities or household practices and create tensions between actors, both within communities and between formal and informal sectors82,83. Programs can fail if the lived experiences of actors involved are ignored, especially those in the informal sector27.

CE transitions intersect with local cultures, politics, and different forms of knowledge. Waste initiatives can advance the political rights of marginalised social groups, including advocacy for slum dwellers’ rights for sanitation58 and waste pickers’ working conditions68. At the same time, there is evidence of initiatives doing little to change hierarchical and gendered political-economic structures55,58. Moreover, local religious and cultural norms can affect the feasibility and nature of CE solutions (such as stigma around rubbish, and traditions of “democratic self-reliance”32), raising questions around the potential to shift, navigate, or harness local social norms. In addition, the cases point to a need to unsettle biases and assumptions around knowledge and innovation transfer (from North to South) and implementation (top-down). For example, imported technologies require knowledge and resource support for effective maintenance, repair, and end-of-life disposal39. Similarly, the cases prompt reflection on ethical applied research and experimentation. Research and experimentation risks being elitist and extractive84 without careful, ongoing consideration of participation and benefit sharing, and validation by the communities where experimentation takes place—especially the most vulnerable.

This paper thus underscores the importance of prioritising and investing in transformative CE pathways through which communities and marginalised groups are not only included but empowered to shape and drive the transition, in line with community expectations, priorities, and needs. Applying these principles in practice, such as through action research and development initiatives like CARP, requires collaboration and integration of customised practices and technical and operational models. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for CE transitions, and an interconnected network of business, market, community, and governance systems is necessary for dealing with the complexities of people and places.

To conclude, this paper asked: what actionable, transformative principles can guide CE transitions research and practice in vulnerable and marginalised communities? To answer this question, we have derived and explored the relevance of 10 transformative principles for CE transitions in the Global South. This paper is the first attempt to develop such principles by combining insights from existing conceptual literatures (mostly developed in the Global North) with empirical insights from existing case studies situated in the Global South, including their application in an ongoing action research program. This unique contribution to knowledge is robust, supported by our abductive analysis, but requires further research to deepen understanding of the relevance of the principles across a broad range of contexts. This paper thus offers an action research agenda for urban CE transitions in the Global South with a focus on the development and evaluation of CE initiatives for systems change by researchers and practitioners.

Methods

Scoping review

This paper employs a scoping review85 methodology focused on identifying qualitative themes in existing evidence on transformative change in (circular) waste management in Global South settings. The scoping review methodology is appropriate for this study because it “provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature [which] aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence.”85 This methodology allows us to determine whether and how CE, sustainability transitions, and participatory design principles are evident in existing empirical case studies focused on circularity and waste management in Global South settings. There are four steps in our approach. (1) A conceptual understanding of transformative CE was derived from existing literature (Section 1, Introduction), informed by disciplinary expertise in CE, sustainability transitions, and participatory design. (2) This conceptual understanding was operationalised into 10 principles. (3) A literature search was performed to identify empirical evidence of the application of the principles. (4) Empirical evidence was analysed to refine and elaborate on the principles (Section 2, Results) and develop their application in a live action research project.

Purposive sampling of literature

We used a purposive sampling approach to find the most suitable literature to address our research objective, as the maximum possible range of data under the subject of inquiry was not manageable86. While the sample represents a broad diversity of circular economy related practices, following this approach, the sample cannot be claimed to be fully representative. Due to the integrative nature of our proposed concept of a transformative CE, relevant studies spanned different bodies of literature. We set the following criteria for sampling: empirical cases of practices related to circularity (CE, waste management, the three Rs), set in urban and peri-urban Global South contexts, and containing a sufficiently detailed description related to the 10 principles. We included empirical studies on waste management that did not explicitly refer to CE because the concept is not widely used for all practices that would contribute to a CE (including basic practices of reusing, recycling, and composting products and materials). We also included cases of networks or programs connecting multiple local waste management activities. Because a holistic approach to a transformative CE is limited in existing literature, we sought case studies encompassing a minimum of three principles (a moderate threshold). We tried different combinations of search prompts in Scopus to maximise reach, comprising (1) CE and related practices and materials/products, and (2) Global South, developing economy/countries, or informal settlements (Fig. 6). Using these combinations, 57 searches were performed.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Full size image

Keyword combinations used in literature search.

In conducting the literature review, our aim is to find empirical cases that provide adequate case descriptions in order to identify the proposed transformative principles and enrich our discussion of the principles87. Since searches were carried out mainly for qualitative knowledge building, their orientation was expansive, not exhaustive. Some methodological choices were made as follows. First, in the initial Scopus search, we limited the search to the first 10 pages of results which was the point at which we determined results were potentially relevant to our study. Second, we conducted further searches for ‘waste’ and ‘CE’ in select social science journals that the authors considered as potentially platforming relevant empirical cases, including Habitat International, Environment and Urbanization, Energy Research and Social Sciences, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, and Sustainability. Third, we also identified relevant papers missed in the literature search through snowballing, as well as studies known by the research team. After excluding case studies that were not sufficiently rich in their description and analysis, 33 cases were included in the final result.

Thematic analysis

We took an abductive approach to the analysis involving iteration between concepts (our theory-derived principles) and empirical evidence (the empirical case studies sampled from the literature)88. We mapped empirical insights from selected studies to a preliminary version of the principles with a focus on program objectives, implementation processes, challenges, and opportunities for CE transitions. This thematic mapping examines both the high-level aspirations of the CE and waste management initiatives identified which correspond with accepted understandings of what a CE entails (Principles 1–3 on reusing, reducing, and regenerating), and implementation processes that contribute to transformative change informed by sustainability transitions and participatory design literatures (Principles 4–10). Synthesis of empirical insights informed (through iteration) and validated each of the principles. Due to word constraints, we limited direct references to the cases in the results section (Section 2, Principles…) to the best examples for each principle, while ensuring depth and breadth of insight (see Supplementary Table 1, ‘Key Principle(s)’). A full list of selected studies and descriptions of each case is attached as supplementary material (Supplementary Table 1).