Page 2950 www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Circular Economy in Waste Management Research: Global Trends,
Knowledge Structures, and Future Directions
Azyyati Anuar1*, Daing Maruak Sadek2, Yong Azrina Ali Akbar3, Rosliza Md Zani4, Fatihah Norazami
Abdullah5 & Umari Abdurrahim Abi Anwar6
1Faculty of Business and Management, Digital Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship, University
Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Cawangan Kedah, Kampus Sungai Petani, Malaysia
2Academic of Contemporary Islamic Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Cawangan Kedah,
Kampus Sungai Petani, Malaysia
3,4,5 Faculty of Business and Management, University Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Cawangan Kedah,
Kampus Sungai Petani, Malaysia
6Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Islam Bandung, Indonesia
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000236
Received: 12 October 2025; Accepted: 18 October 2025; Published: 08 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This study maps the global research landscape at the circular economy–waste management (CE–WM) nexus
and identifies priority avenues to accelerate circularity. Using a PRISMA-informed protocol on Scopus, we
assembled 1,880 records (2020–2025) and applied a multi-method bibliometric workflow: performance
indicators (document type, years of publications, languages, source title & countries). Data were cleaned and
standardized with transparent thesauri and disambiguation procedures; networks employed fractional counting,
association-strength normalization, and modularity-based clustering. Results show a pronounced post-2020
surge peaking in 2024 and a venue structure concentrated in applied sustainability outlets, led by the Journal of
Cleaner Production. Collaboration is organized around Asia–Europe hubs, with India and China among the
most prolific contributors alongside the United Kingdom and Italy. Science mapping reveals an intellectual
core centered on sustainable development, waste management, recycling, and life-cycle assessment, encircled
by four research fronts: (i) biological and process pathways (e.g., anaerobic digestion, biogas), (ii)
thermochemical and construction-materials valorization (e.g., geopolymers, secondary aggregates, plastics),
(iii) management, policy, and circular supply chains (e.g., e-waste governance, extended producer
responsibility), and (iv) digital and urban “smart circularity” (IoT, data infrastructures, smart cities). The study
concludes that CE–WM research is rapidly consolidating toward integrated, data-enabled, and policy-aligned
systems. Limitations include single-index coverage and citation-window effects. It is recommended to
triangulate databases and deploy time-sliced, field-normalized maps linked to causal policy evaluation and
techno-economic/LCA assessments to advance evidence-based circularity.
Keywords: Bibliometric analysis; Circular economy; Global collaboration network; Waste management;
INTRODUCTION
The rapid acceleration of global urbanization, industrial growth, and resource consumption has intensified
concerns regarding the sustainability of current waste management practices. The linear “take–make–dispose”
model, long dominant in global economies, has proven inadequate in addressing environmental degradation,
resource depletion, and climate change. In response, the concept of the circular economy (CE) has emerged as
a transformative paradigm that seeks to optimize resource efficiency, extend product lifecycles, and minimize
waste generation (Ranjbari et al., 2021). Within this framework, waste management (WM) serves as a corner-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2951 www.rsisinternational.org
stone, providing both the challenges and opportunities for embedding circularity into practice. This duality
makes the study of CE within WM not only timely but also essential for advancing global sustainability agen-
das.
Over the past two decades, scholarly interest in CE and WM has grown markedly, reflected in the substantial
increase in peer-reviewed publications and international collaborations (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022). Re-
search has explored diverse aspects of this intersection, ranging from regional efficiency assessments (Potkány
et al., 2024) to sector-specific studies in construction and demolition waste (Hasibuan et al., 2025). Thematic
clusters have emerged around issues such as municipal solid waste, electronic waste, plastic waste, bio-based
waste management, and life cycle assessment (Tanveer et al., 2022). Simultaneously, new technological fron-
tiers including Industry 4.0, digitalization, and robotics are being integrated into CE-oriented WM systems
(Sarc et al., 2019; Afshari et al., 2024). Despite this progress, the literature remains fragmented, and compre-
hensive bibliometric syntheses are still limited, underscoring the need for systematic evaluation of global
trends, knowledge structures, and research directions.
This study adopts a bibliometric approach to map and critically examine the intellectual landscape of CE in
WM research. Bibliometrics, complemented by science mapping techniques, provides a robust means of un-
covering publication trends, influential authors, leading institutions, and collaborative networks, while also
tracing thematic evolution and identifying emergent research frontiers (Uwuigbe et al., 2025). By situating CE-
WM scholarship within a broader bibliometric framework, this study seeks to synthesize current knowledge,
reveal structural patterns in the field, and outline promising directions for future inquiry. This approach con-
tributes to ongoing scholarly debates on sustainability transitions while bridging theoretical, methodological,
and policy-oriented perspectives.
The core problem addressed in this research lies in the absence of a consolidated and up-to-date bibliometric
assessment of CE within WM. Although several studies have explored CE in specific domains such as con-
struction, food waste, or textiles few have offered a comprehensive overview of global CE-WM scholarship
that simultaneously integrates trends, thematic structures, and future pathways (Hasan et al., 2025; Ng &
Wong, 2024). The lack of such a synthesis limits the ability of policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to
fully understand the progress achieved, the challenges that remain, and the opportunities for interdisciplinary
collaboration. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by offering a holistic bibliometric analysis of CE and
WM literature.
Guided by this rationale, the central research question driving this study is: What are the global trends,
knowledge structures, and future directions of circular economy research in the context of waste management?
This overarching question enables the investigation of sub-questions related to publication dynamics, thematic
hotspots, collaborative patterns, and emergent scholarly frontiers.
To address these questions, the remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 details the methodo-
logical approach, including database selection, bibliometric tools, and analytical techniques. Section 3 presents
the findings of the performance analysis, thematic mapping, and network visualizations. Section 4 discusses
the implications of these findings for both academic research and policy development. Finally, Section 5 offers
conclusions, highlights limitations, and outlines future research trajectories.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research on the circular economy (CE) within waste management (WM) has grown significantly in recent
years, reflecting global momentum toward sustainability transitions. Annual scientific production in this do-
main has increased by nearly 94% in the past five years, with notable contributions from Italy, Spain, the Unit-
ed Kingdom, China, Brazil, and India (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022). The literature reveals a shift in scholarly
focus from purely technological or process-based approaches toward broader systemic inquiries that integrate
waste management with recycling, resource efficiency, and sustainable development goals. Highly cited works
emphasize waste-to-energy systems and the calorific potential of municipal solid waste, underlining the cen-
trality of energy recovery within CE frameworks (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022). This demonstrates how WM
has been positioned not merely as a disposal challenge but as a vital node in achieving circular resource flows.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2952 www.rsisinternational.org
At the structural level, several knowledge domains dominate the CE-WM landscape. Conceptual and thematic
analyses reveal recurring clusters around recycling, greenhouse gas mitigation, life cycle assessment (LCA),
anaerobic digestion, and waste treatment processes (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022). Food waste emerges as a
particularly salient theme, given its substantial environmental impact and potential for valorization through CE
principles (Roy et al., 2025). The integration of food waste management into CE strategies has prompted
scholars to link waste streams with broader sustainability agendas, including systems thinking and the Sustain-
able Development Goals (SDGs). However, despite the prominence of these clusters, there is limited cross-
pollination between sector-specific inquiries, resulting in fragmented knowledge structures that hinder the de-
velopment of comprehensive circular models.
A key area of scholarly debate concerns the adequacy of CE in addressing the complexity of WM systems.
While some studies frame CE as a transformative paradigm capable of restructuring industrial production and
consumption cycles, others highlight limitations due to inconsistent policy frameworks, financial barriers, and
insufficient consumer engagement (da Silva et al., 2024). This tension reveals a persistent gap between con-
ceptual ideals and practical implementation, particularly in low- and middle-income contexts where waste
governance systems remain underdeveloped. Moreover, despite the rise in global collaboration, studies note
uneven participation across regions, with Europe and China dominating output while Africa and parts of South
America remain underrepresented (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022). These disparities underscore the need for
more inclusive, geographically diverse research to ensure that CE-WM strategies address both global and local
realities.
Emerging technologies represent a promising yet underexplored frontier in CE-WM scholarship. The conver-
gence of artificial intelligence (AI), digital twins (DT), and Industry 4.0 innovations offers significant potential
to enhance collection systems, optimize recycling processes, and enable real-time environmental monitoring
(Campana et al., 2025). Early bibliometric studies identify digitalization, waste forecasting, and process auto-
mation as expanding research areas, suggesting a shift toward “smart” waste management systems that support
CE transitions. However, the integration of these technologies into CE frameworks remains in its infancy, with
most studies emphasizing conceptual opportunities rather than empirical validations. As such, the literature
calls for further investigation into the scalability, affordability, and environmental trade-offs of these digital
innovations.
Despite these advances, several areas remain insufficiently explored. Notably, the literature demonstrates weak
interconnectedness among top-cited works, suggesting limited integration across subfields (Roy et al., 2025).
Future research must strengthen linkages between technological innovations, behavioral studies, and policy
assessments to produce holistic models of circularity in waste management. There is also a pressing need to
evaluate the effectiveness of CE strategies at the systems level, particularly in terms of policy adoption, con-
sumer participation, and cross-sectoral impacts. By adopting a bibliometric approach, this study seeks to sys-
tematically synthesize the current body of knowledge, reveal the intellectual structure of CE-WM scholarship,
and identify research frontiers that can guide future investigations. In doing so, it addresses the fragmented
state of the literature and provides a comprehensive roadmap for advancing CE in waste management.
METHODS
A rigorous bibliometric analysis of circular economy (CE) research related to waste management (WM) can be
executed using Scopus as the principal data source and a multi-method science-mapping workflow that
captures performance trends, intellectual structure, and global collaboration patterns. Scopus is justified on
methodological grounds: it offers broad, interdisciplinary coverage of journals and conference proceedings
highly relevant to CE–WM (e.g., environmental engineering, sustainability policy, industrial ecology),
provides stable author and affiliation identifiers that improve disambiguation, and yields citation and metadata
exports suitable for large-scale network analyses; comparative studies further indicate that Scopus covers a
wider array of journals than Web of Science in many applied domains, thereby reducing field-coverage bias
for emerging, practice-oriented topics (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016; Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). The study
begins with a transparent and reproducible query (e.g., TITLE-ABS-KEY(“circular economy” AND (“waste
management” OR recycling OR “waste-to-energy” OR “resource recovery”))) bounded by a defined time span
and document types; records are screened to exclude off-topic items, and deduplicated.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2953 www.rsisinternational.org
From Scopus, the following fields are extracted: authors, titles, abstracts, affiliations (countries/institutions),
references, sources, and yearly citations. Performance analyses quantify annual growth, productivity (e.g., total
publications, leading sources/institutions/countries), and impact (total citations, citations per paper, h-/g-/m-
indices), with optional field-normalized indicators (e.g., MNCS) to mitigate disciplinary and temporal citation
effects (Donthu et al., 2021; Zupic & Čater, 2015). Science mapping proceeds along complementary axes: (i)
co-citation networks (of references, authors, and sources) to delineate the intellectual base of CE–WM; (ii)
bibliographic coupling (documents, institutions, countries) to reveal contemporary research fronts; and (iii)
keyword co-occurrence to uncover thematic structures and longitudinal evolution (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017).
Network construction employs fractional counting for multi-authored or multi-institutional items and
association-strength normalization to correct for size effects in co-occurrence matrices; modularity-based
community detection (e.g., Leiden/Louvain) identifies cohesive clusters that are subsequently interpreted and
labeled via high-salience terms (Traag et al., 2019; Waltman & van Eck, 2015). Global collaboration is
examined through co-authorship networks aggregated at author, institution, and country levels, reporting
centrality, density, and international collaboration rates to expose core–periphery structures and regional
asymmetries. To ensure robustness, the analysis conducts threshold sensitivity tests (e.g., minimum
occurrences/citations), time-slicing to compare early versus recent periods, and cross-checks of cluster stability.
This bibliometric design directly supports knowledge accumulation in the CE–WM field: it synthesizes
dispersed evidence on waste-to-resource strategies (e.g., recycling, waste-to-energy, LCA integration), clarifies
debate arenas (technology effectiveness, policy instruments, consumer behavior), and surfaces underexplored
intersections (e.g., AI-enabled circular logistics, sectoral valorization pathways), thereby providing a holistic
map of global trends, knowledge structures, and future directions that addresses the current fragmentation
noted in prior CE–WM reviews (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022; Ranjbari et al., 2021).
The methodology followed a PRISMA-informed workflow to ensure transparency and reproducibility from
database querying to final corpus assembly (Page et al., 2021). Scopus was selected as the sole data source be-
cause of its broad, interdisciplinary coverage across environmental science, engineering, and busi-
ness/management outlets, stable author and affiliation identifiers, and high-quality citation metadata suitable
for large-scale performance and network analyses. Comparative evaluations indicate that Scopus offers wider
journal coverage than Web of Science in many applied and emerging areas—advantages that are particularly
salient for circular economy (CE) and waste management (WM), which span policy, technology, and man-
agement domains (Harzing & Alakangas, 2016; Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). The search was executed on 2
October 2025, and restricted to the Scopus subject area “Business, Management & Accounting” to focus on
organizational, policy, and systems perspectives on CE–WM, while language was not restricted to minimize
selection bias.
Query construction combined controlled terms and synonyms to capture the CE–WM intersection and reduce
false negatives. The advanced search string operationalized two concept blocks joined by AND: (“circular
economy” OR “closed loop” OR “resource recovery” OR “sustainable development”) AND (“waste manage-
ment” OR “waste disposal” OR “refuse” OR “solid waste”). The query was applied to titles, abstracts, and au-
thor keywords (TITLE-ABS-KEY), and the temporal window was 2020–2025 to reflect post-2019 policy
shifts and acceleration in CE research. The initial retrieval yielded 30,213 records (identification stage in
PRISMA). Bibliographic fields exported included authors, titles, abstracts, author keywords, affiliations (insti-
tutions and countries), source titles, references, citation counts, and publication years—providing the minimum
metadata required for performance indicators and network construction (Donthu et al., 2021).
Screening proceeded in two passes. First, an automated filtering removed clearly off-topic items by scanning
titles/abstracts for unrelated meanings of “CE” and excluding document types unlikely to contribute substan-
tive, citable knowledge (e.g., editorials, notes), while retaining articles, reviews, and conference papers. Sec-
ond, a manual eligibility assessment checked a sample of records against inclusion criteria: explicit engage-
ment with CE principles in the context of WM (e.g., recycling, waste-to-energy, resource recovery, life-cycle
approaches). Duplicates and records with incomplete metadata were removed. As depicted in Figure 1, the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2954 www.rsisinternational.org
screening and eligibility steps substantially reduced the dataset; the number of removed records and the re-
tained corpus for analysis follow the counts reported in the PRISMA diagram. Data preparation and indicator
construction followed established bibliometric practice. After harmonizing author names and institutions, the
study computed performance metrics (e.g., total publications, total citations, citations per paper, h-index at au-
thor/source/country levels) and, where appropriate, field-normalized indicators to mitigate temporal and disci-
plinary citation differences (Waltman & van Eck, 2015; Donthu et al., 2021). Thresholds (e.g., minimum oc-
currences or citations) were set using sensitivity checks to balance coverage and interpretability.
Science-mapping examined three complementary structures. Co-citation networks (references, authors, and
sources) delineated the intellectual base; bibliographic coupling among documents, institutions, and countries
illuminated current research fronts; and keyword co-occurrence revealed thematic structures and their evolu-
tion over time (Zupic & Čater, 2015; van Eck & Waltman, 2010). Networks used fractional counting for multi-
authored items and association-strength normalization to control for size effects (van Eck & Waltman, 2009).
Communities were detected with modularity-maximizing algorithms (e.g., Leiden/Louvain), and clusters were
labeled using high-salience terms and exemplar papers (Traag et al., 2019). Global collaboration patterns were
assessed via co-authorship at author, institutional, and country levels, reporting centrality and international col-
laboration rates to reveal core–periphery structures and regional asymmetries. This PRISMA-guided, Scopus-
based, multi-method design directly supports the mapping and advancement of scientific knowledge in CE–
WM by synthesizing dispersed evidence, clarifying the field’s intellectual architecture, and identifying emer-
gent fronts that warrant deeper inquiry (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022; Ranjbari et al., 2021).
Fig. 1: PRISMA Flow Diagram
Source: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
This study implemented a reproducible, multi-stage bibliometric workflow in which Scopus exports (full
records and cited references in RIS/BibTeX) were audited, standardized, and mapped using Harzing’s Publish
or Perish (PoP). Following best-practice guidance (Donthu et al., 2021; Zupic & Čater, 2015), PoP was first
used to ingest the exports, verify metadata completeness, and compute core performance indicators (total
publications/citations, citations per paper, h- and g-indices). PoP’s sortable views by DOI, title, author string,
and source enabled rapid deduplication and detection of anomalies (e.g., extreme citation counts, broken DOIs),
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2955 www.rsisinternational.org
while its edit/filter functions supported standardization of obvious variants in author names and source titles
prior to final disambiguation (Harzing, 2007). In combination, PoP strengthened data cleaning and metric
reliability, yielding a transparent foundation for interpreting trends, intellectual structure, and global
collaboration patterns in CE–WM.
RESULTS
This section reports the empirical outcomes of the bibliometric inquiry into circular economy (CE) research
within waste management (WM). Guided by the study’s aim to clarify how CE–WM scholarship is organized,
who collaborates with whom and where, which themes constitute the intellectual core and the research front,
and which avenues merit prioritization, we proceed from descriptive performance indicators to multi-level
science mapping.
Document and Source Types
The corpus comprises 1,880 records across ten document types, with journal articles dominating (n = 1,211;
64.41%) and reviews contributing 9.89% (n = 186); together, these citable, peer-reviewed formats account for
74.30% of the dataset, a profile typical of mature research areas where knowledge accumulation and impact
are primarily channeled through journals (Refer to Table 1) (Donthu et al., 2021; Zupic & Čater, 2015). The
sizable review share signals consolidation and synthesis, which often yield higher citation visibility by
integrating dispersed evidence and setting agendas for subsequent inquiry (Donthu et al., 2021). This journal-
centric mix provides a robust basis for performance indicators (e.g., citations per paper, h-/g-indices) and for
science-mapping analyses that rely on consistent referencing practices. Book chapters constitute 16.76% (n =
315) and books 2.82% (n = 53), underscoring the conceptual, policy, and managerial emphases characteristic
of circular-economy and waste-management scholarship in business and management contexts; the
prominence of chaptered volumes aligns with publication cultures in management, policy, and sustainability
studies, where edited books curate emerging debates and methodological pluralism (Zupic & Čater, 2015),
though these shares should be interpreted with caution because Scopus prioritizes journal coverage, potentially
under-representing monographs and edited volumes in indexing and citation capture (Mongeon & Paul-Hus,
2016).
Conference papers account for 5.48% (n = 103), reflecting the field’s technological interfaces (e.g.,
digitalization, Industry 4.0, analytics in waste systems) where rapid dissemination via proceedings is common
before journal expansion; this tier is valuable for detecting research fronts, particularly methods and
applications, yet tends to exhibit shorter reference lists and more variable citation practices than journals,
moderating their weight in co-citation and coupling networks (Donthu et al., 2021; Mongeon & Paul-Hus,
2016). The remaining classes are marginal editorials (0.27%), conference reviews (0.16%), notes and short
surveys (0.05% each) and are typically excluded from impact benchmarking and core science-mapping due to
heterogeneous peer-review standards and limited reference data (Zupic & Čater, 2015). Retracted items are
rare (0.11%, n = 2); flagging and excluding them is an essential integrity safeguard, given evidence that
retractions can distort citation signals and network structure if left unfiltered (Fang et al., 2012). Implications
for subsequent analyses: with ~80% of the corpus in journals (articles, reviews, and conference papers), the
dataset is well suited for trend analysis and network mapping; articles and reviews provide the backbone for
delineating the intellectual core (via co-citation) and the research front (via bibliographic coupling), while
chapters/books enrich the interpretive context for policy and managerial themes. In reporting performance and
collaboration indicators, we therefore foreground journal items to maximize comparability and citation
reliability, while using book-type evidence qualitatively to contextualize theoretical and policy developments
(Donthu et al., 2021).
Table 1: Document Type
Document Type TP %
Article 1211 64.41%
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2956 www.rsisinternational.org
Book Chapter 315 16.76%
Review 186 9.89%
Conference Paper 103 5.48%
Book 53 2.82%
Editorial 5 0.27%
Conference Review 3 0.16%
Retracted 2 0.11%
Note 1 0.05%
Short Survey 1 0.05%
Total 1880 100%
.3.2. Year of Publications/Evolution of Published Studies
Across 2020–2025 in the Table 2 the field exhibits sustained expansion, with annual outputs rising from 232
publications in 2020 (12.34%) to a peak of 429 in 2024 (22.82%), then easing to 357 in 2025 (18.99%); year-
over-year changes show an early surge (+20.7%, 2020→2021), a brief plateau (−1.1%, 2021→2022), renewed
growth (+10.1%, 2022→2023), and a sharp upswing into the 2024 peak (+40.7%, 2023→2024) before a
partial decline in 2025 (−16.8%, 2024→2025). On average, 313 items were published per year; the two most
recent full years (2024–2025) account for 41.8% of all records and the last three years (2023–2025) for 58.0%,
underscoring a pronounced front-loading of recent scholarship. Using the endpoints 2020 and 2025, the
compound annual growth rate is ~9.0% (and 16.6% for 2020–2024, pre-2025 partial year). Because
bibliographic databases index with delays, especially late-year issues, the 2025 total likely underestimates final
output and should be interpreted cautiously (Donthu et al., 2021). This temporal profile aligns with syntheses
reporting a post-2019 acceleration of CE–WM research, driven by the integration of life-cycle thinking,
resource recovery, and greenhouse-gas considerations into mainstream sustainability agendas (Ranjbari et al.,
2021; Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022); the interim dip in 2022 and rebound in 2023–2024 is consistent with
publication-pipeline dynamics (special issues, conference-to-journal expansions) and the rapid diffusion of
digital/Industry 4.0 approaches (e.g., robotics, analytics, and cyber-physical systems) into waste systems,
expanding the topic’s methodological and sectoral reach (Sarc et al., 2019; Afshari et al., 2024).
Scopus’s broad coverage of applied, management, and engineering outlets likely contributes to the strong
recent growth (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Methodologically, the recency-weighted distribution has
implications for impact and network analyses: because citations accrue over time, recent cohorts (2023–2025)
will show lower raw citation counts and weaker co-citation ties even if they constitute the contemporary
research front; accordingly, results triangulate performance indicators with bibliographic coupling (fronts) and
keyword overlay maps (thematic evolution), complementing co-citation signals from earlier, foundational
work (Zupic & Čater, 2015; Donthu et al., 2021). Taken together, the year-by-year pattern portrays a field that
has rapidly scaled and diversified since 2020, reaching a 2024 apex and maintaining elevated activity into
2025, a context that motivates closer mapping of the intellectual core and emergent directions in CE–WM.
Table 2: Year of Publications
Year TP %
2025 357 18.99%
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2957 www.rsisinternational.org
2024 429 22.82%
2023 305 16.22%
2022 277 14.73%
2021 280 14.89%
2020 232 12.34%
Total 1880 100%
Languages of Documents
The corpus is overwhelmingly Anglophone, with English ≈ 99.0% (n ≈ 1.86k), while Spanish (0.58%; n = 11),
Portuguese (0.11%; n = 2), Serbian (0.11%; n = 2), Russian (0.05%; n = 1), and Thai (0.05%; n = 1) together
account for <1% of publications (Refer to Table 3). This near-monolingual distribution is typical of Scopus-
indexed literatures in applied sustainability and management, where English functions as the lingua franca of
scholarly communication and where the database’s journal coverage favors English-language outlets (Mon-
geon & Paul-Hus, 2016). The small Spanish and Portuguese shares—despite active CE–WM communities in
Spain and Brazil, reflect a well-documented pattern in which non-Anglophone researchers publish internation-
ally in English while regionally oriented work remains underrepresented in global indexes (Amano et al.,
2016; Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016).
This linguistic profile has methodological and substantive implications. Methodologically, it reduces noise for
co-citation and bibliographic-coupling analyses (due to consistent referencing practices in English-language
journals), but it can understate local evidence on implementation, behavioral drivers, and policy instruments
published in national or regional platforms (Donthu et al., 2021). Substantively, the Anglophone dominance
may bias collaboration maps toward international hubs and obscure regional knowledge networks (e.g., Latin
American or Eastern European outlets) and context-specific solutions that are vital for circularity in heteroge-
neous waste governance settings. To mitigate language bias and improve completeness, future updates could
supplement Scopus with regional indices (e.g., SciELO/RedALyC for Ibero-America) and apply bilingual
keyword strategies or post-hoc reconciliation of non-English records (Meneghini & Packer, 2007). Such steps
would enhance the validity of claims about who collaborates with whom and where and would better align bib-
liometric maps with the globally distributed practice of CE–WM.
Table 3: Languages Used for Publications
Language Total Publications* Percentage (%)
English 1866 99.04%
Spanish 11 0.58%
Portuguese 2 0.11%
Serbian 2 0.11%
Russian 1 0.05%
Thai 1 0.05%
*one document has been prepared in dual languages
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2958 www.rsisinternational.org
Most Active Source Titles
The source portfolio exhibits in Table 4, a Bradford-type concentration with a single core outlet and a long tail
of contributing venues. The Journal of Cleaner Production (JCLP) alone publishes 827 papers (43.99%),
indicating that knowledge production at the circular economy and waste management (CE–WM) nexus is
strongly anchored in an applied sustainability journal with established traditions in industrial ecology, life-
cycle thinking, and waste valorization. Prior bibliometric syntheses of CE–WM similarly identify JCLP as the
dominant publication venue, reflecting its editorial alignment with circular resource strategies and its extensive
topical coverage across policy, technology, and management (Ranjbari et al., 2021; Negrete-Cardoso et al.,
2022). The steep drop from the first to subsequent sources is characteristic of Bradford’s law, in which a small
core of journals accounts for a large share of the literature, followed by broader “zones” of diminishing yield
(Bradford, 1934; Zupic & Čater, 2015). A strategy and policy cluster forms the second tier, where Business
Strategy and the Environment (2.77%) and Business Strategy and Development (0.43%) channel debates on
corporate circularity, governance instruments, and strategic capabilities for resource loops, indicating that CE–
WM scholarship is not only technology driven but also embedded in organizational strategy and policy design,
an orientation consistent with the management-and-organization strand of bibliometric research in
sustainability (Zupic & Čater, 2015; Donthu et al., 2021). Socio-Economic Planning Sciences (0.69%) adds a
quantitative policy-evaluation lens, complementing the managerial framing with systems-level planning
perspectives.
A third tier reflects engineering, operations, and foresight: Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy
(2.61%) and Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management (1.01%) capture process integration,
built-environment circularity, and construction-and-demolition waste, while Technological Forecasting and
Social Change (0.64%) and Sustainable Futures (1.22%) extend the portfolio toward futures and cross-
disciplinary sustainability, signaling increasing attention to long-horizon transitions and scenario work.
International Journal of Production Economics (0.48%) and Logistics (0.48%) indicate supply-chain
optimization, reverse logistics, and circular operations, topics that have expanded rapidly in the post-2019
surge documented by recent reviews (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022; Ranjbari et al., 2021), and the urban
governance dimension is represented by Cities (0.64%), which aligns with municipal solid-waste and zero-
waste city agendas. Finally, conference proceedings and edited volumes, including the Proceedings of the
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (0.48%), Integrated
Approaches for Sustainable E-Waste Management (0.48%), and Trash or Treasure: Entrepreneurial
Opportunities in Waste Management (0.48%), evidence pathways for rapid dissemination of emerging
methods, sectoral cases, and entrepreneurial models; proceedings often precede journal articles and help
identify research fronts, though citation and referencing heterogeneity suggest treating them separately in co-
citation analyses (Donthu et al., 2021). Notably, the listed top sources together account for about 56% of
publications, leaving a substantial long tail across many venues, a dispersion expected in Scopus, whose broad
coverage of applied and interdisciplinary outlets elevates visibility for practice-oriented CE–WM work beyond
a narrow set of environmental journals (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Methodologically, this mix justifies
analyzing source co-citation to delineate the intellectual core, with JCLP as an anchor, and bibliographic
coupling to locate contemporary research fronts across strategy, engineering, and urban governance.
Table 4: Most Active Source Title
Source Title Total Publications Percentage (%)
Journal of Cleaner Production 827 43.99%
Business Strategy and the Environment 52 2.77%
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 49 2.61%
Sustainable Futures 23 1.22%
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2959 www.rsisinternational.org
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 19 1.01%
Socio Economic Planning Sciences 13 0.69%
Cities 12 0.64%
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 12 0.64%
Integrated Approaches for Sustainable E Waste Management 9 0.48%
International Journal of Production Economics 9 0.48%
Logistics 9 0.48%
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial En-
gineering and Operations Management
9 0.48%
Trash or Treasure Entrepreneurial Opportunities in Waste
Management
9 0.48%
Business Strategy and Development 8 0.43%
Most Active Countries
The geographic distribution of contributions is highly concentrated in Table 5: the top 10 countries account for
1,531 of 1,880 publications (≈81.5%), with India (n = 354; 18.83%) and China (n = 335; 17.82%) together
producing ≈36.6% of the corpus. This leadership aligns with prior bibliometric syntheses that repeatedly iden-
tify India, China, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom among the most active contributors to circular econo-
my–waste management (CE–WM) scholarship (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022; Ranjbari et al., 2021). The Unit-
ed Kingdom (8.83%) and Italy (8.24%) anchor the European cohort, while the United States (5.64%), Brazil
(4.79%), and Canada (3.19%) represent the Americas. In the Asia–Pacific, Australia (5.48%) and Malaysia
(4.20%) add to a strong regional showing, such that Asia alone contributes ≈40.9% (India, China, Malaysia),
rising to ≈46.3% when Australia is included. This pattern reflects both the scale of waste governance challeng-
es in rapidly urbanizing economies and the diffusion of CE policy instruments and industrial ecology ap-
proaches in European contexts documented by earlier reviews (Ranjbari et al., 2021; Negrete-Cardoso et al.,
2022).
From a science‐mapping perspective, these leading countries are likely to occupy central positions in co-
authorship networks and to host clusters that bridge technological, policy, and supply-chain strands of CE–
WM research roles typically associated with high degree/betweenness centrality in collaboration graphs
(Newman, 2001). Prior evidence also points to robust cross-national ties among the United Kingdom, China,
and India, indicative of transregional knowledge exchange and joint agenda-setting in CE topics (Uwuigbe et
al., 2025). Meanwhile, the presence of Brazil and Malaysia among the most active countries underscores the
growing participation of emerging economies, consistent with findings that the CE research base is diversify-
ing beyond traditional OECD hubs toward contexts where implementation constraints and opportunities are
most acute (Uwuigbe et al., 2025; Ranjbari et al., 2021).
Methodologically, two cautions strengthen inference from these counts. First, index coverage effects can shape
national profiles: Scopus’s comparatively broad representation of applied engineering and management outlets
tends to amplify visibility for practice-oriented CE–WM research and for countries publishing heavily in such
venues (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Second, full counting of internationally co-authored papers can inflate
country totals relative to fractional counting; therefore, subsequent analyses should complement productivity
shares with fractionalized co-authorship, field-normalized impact indicators, and time-sliced networks to dis-
tinguish long-standing hubs from emergent research fronts (Waltman & van Eck, 2015; Donthu et al., 2021).
Taken together, the country distribution depicts a field organized around Asia–Europe poles with significant
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2960 www.rsisinternational.org
American participation and increasing engagement by emerging economies an arrangement that provides fer-
tile ground for mapping who collaborates with whom and where, identifying intellectual cores and research
fronts, and prioritizing policy technology bundles that can accelerate circularity.
Table 5: Most Active Countries
Country TP %
India 354 18.83%
China 335 17.82%
United Kingdom 166 8.83%
Italy 155 8.24%
United States 106 5.64%
Australia 103 5.48%
Brazil 90 4.79%
Spain 83 4.41%
Malaysia 79 4.20%
Canada 60 3.19%
DISCUSSION
This bibliometric synthesis addressed three interlocking questions, global trends, knowledge structures, and
future directions of circular‐economy (CE) research in the context of waste management (WM). The produc-
tion analysis shows a pronounced post-2020 surge culminating in a 2024 apex, with output remaining elevated
thereafter. The source portfolio is highly concentrated, with Journal of Cleaner Production serving as the an-
chor outlet, while document profiles are dominated by peer-reviewed articles and reviews, indicating both rap-
id knowledge generation and consolidation (Ranjbari et al., 2021; Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022). Geographical-
ly, activity is centered in Asia and Europe: India and China together contribute over one-third of records, fol-
lowed by the United Kingdom and Italy, with the United States, Australia, Brazil, Spain, Malaysia, and Canada
forming a second ring of prolific contributors. This distribution accords with prior overviews showing strong
participation from European policy hubs and rapidly urbanizing Asian economies where WM challenges and
CE policy experimentation are most intense (Ranjbari et al., 2021; Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022; Uwuigbe et
al., 2025).
Science-mapping clarifies the intellectual organization of CE–WM. Co-occurrence and co-citation structures
consistently place sustainable development, waste management, and recycling at the network’s core, bridged
by life-cycle and assessment lenses; around this core, four research constellations emerge: (i) biologi-
cal/process routes (municipal solid waste, anaerobic digestion/biogas, landfill gas, wastewater treatment) that
foreground mitigation outcomes; (ii) thermochemical and materials valorization (waste incineration, energy
utilization, geopolymers, fly ash, construction aggregates, plastics recycling) that operationalize industrial
symbiosis but raise concerns about carbon and toxics; (iii) management, policy, and supply-chain design (re-
verse logistics, laws and legislation, environmental economics) with strong ties to e-waste governance; and (iv)
digital/urban “smart circularity” (IoT, information management, smart city, SDGs) that links data infrastruc-
tures with operational optimization (Sarc et al., 2019; Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022; Campana et al., 2025).
Thematic adjacency between assessment frameworks and treatment pathways suggests that LCA-grounded
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2961 www.rsisinternational.org
evaluation mediates technology choice evidence of a mature, systems-oriented intellectual base (Ranjbari et
al., 2021).
Collaboration patterns reinforce this organization. Co-authorship networks (authors, institutions, countries)
indicate Asia–Europe hubs with dense cross-national ties (e.g., U.K.–China–India), consistent with prior re-
ports of growing internationalization in CE research and the emergence of brokerage roles that bridge policy,
engineering, and operations perspectives (Newman, 2001; Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022). A long-tail author-
ship distributionfew highly prolific investigators and many with small counts aligns with classic regularities
(Lotka, 1926) and implies that cumulative advantage and network position, not only productivity, shape influ-
ence. Methodologically, these patterns justify triangulating impact metrics with network centrality and adopt-
ing fractional counting and field-normalized indicators to avoid over-weighting large, multi-institutional teams
and older cohorts (Waltman & van Eck, 2015).
Several debates and structural constraints surface from the maps. First, the prominence of waste-to-energy
(WtE) and landfill themes within materials/thermochemical clusters highlights an ongoing tension between
near-term recovery pathways and the risk of technology lock-in that may displace higher-order circular strate-
gies (reduction, reuse) (Negrete-Cardoso et al., 2022; da Silva et al., 2024). Second, policy coherence and im-
plementation capacity vary widely, with evidence of regional asymmetries in CE efficiency and WM perfor-
mance (Potkány et al., 2024). Third, barrier-mapping studies converge on regulatory inconsistency, financing
gaps, and limited consumer participation as recurring obstacles to scaling circular practices across sectors (Ak-
omea-Frimpong et al., 2024; Minz et al., 2025). Together, these findings suggest that the evolution of CE–WM
has been shaped as much by governance and market design as by technology availability.
Looking forward, three avenues merit prioritization. Digitalized circular systems, AI, digital twins, sensing and
tracking should be integrated with WM operations to enable forecasting, quality control, and real-time decision
support; empirical evaluations of performance, cost, and environmental trade-offs are needed beyond concep-
tual advocacy (Sarc et al., 2019; Afshari et al., 2024; Campana et al., 2025). Sectoral scaling with assessment
discipline, notably in construction and demolition waste, plastics, and agri-food, should couple process innova-
tions (e.g., geopolymers, advanced sorting) with LCA-based policy instruments to avoid burden shifting (Ha-
sibuan et al., 2025; Roy et al., 2025). Inclusive collaboration geographies expanding comparative and south–
south partnerships, can reduce fragmentation and align research fronts with implementation contexts where
gains from circularity are largest (Uwuigbe et al., 2025). Methodologically, future bibliometrics should incor-
porate overlay maps, time-sliced coupling, and normalized impact to track how research fronts migrate over
time and to separate true thematic momentum from database coverage effects (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016).
Collectively, the trends, structures, and directions identified here indicate a field progressing from disparate
technological and sectoral experiments toward integrated, data-enabled, and policy-aligned circular systems.
CONCLUSION
To begin, this bibliometric analysis delineates a rapidly consolidating research domain at the circular economy
and waste management nexus, with output accelerating after 2020, peaking in 2024, and remaining elevated
thereafter. Moreover, dissemination is concentrated in applied sustainability outlets, most notably the Journal
of Cleaner Production; in parallel, science mapping reveals an intellectual core anchored by sustainable
development, waste management, recycling, and life cycle assessment. Specifically, surrounding this core are
research fronts in (i) biological and process pathways (anaerobic digestion and biogas, municipal solid waste,
landfill gas), (ii) thermochemical and construction materials valorization (incineration and energy recovery,
geopolymers, secondary aggregates, plastics), (iii) management, policy, and supply chain design (reverse
logistics, electronic waste governance, extended producer responsibility), and (iv) digital and urban “smart
circularity” (IoT, information management, smart cities). In addition, collaboration maps show hubs in Asia
and Europe led by India, China, the United Kingdom, and Italy; at the same time, a long tail authorship pattern
indicates broad participation. However, several limitations warrant caution, including single-index coverage,
language and late-year indexing biases, sensitivity to query and counting choices, and the non-causal nature of
bibliometric signals. Consequently, future work should triangulate databases and languages, apply time sliced
coupling and overlay maps with field normalized impact indicators, and link maps to causal policy evaluation
and techno-economic and life cycle assessments; furthermore, open thesauri, shared code, and living
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2962 www.rsisinternational.org
dashboards would enhance cumulation and equity by targeting under-connected regions. In sum, the enduring
impact of this study arises from its integrative cartography, which provides a reproducible baseline to monitor
fronts, identify credible partners, and direct policy and technology investments toward scalable, evidence-
based circularity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Kedah State Research Committee, UiTM
Kedah Branch, for the generous funding provided under the Tabung Penyelidikan Am. This support was
crucial in facilitating the research and ensuring the successful publication of this article.
REFERENCES
1. Afshari, H., Gurtu, A., & Jaber, M. Y. (2024). Unlocking the potential of solid waste management with
circular economy and Industry 4.0. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 195, Article 110457.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110457
2. Camana, D., Manzardo, A., Toniolo, S., Gallo, F., & Scipioni, A. (2021). Assessing environmental sus-
tainability of local waste management policies in Italy from a circular economy perspective: An over-
view of existing tools. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 613–629.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.029
3. da Silva, N. S., Sano, E. E., Chaves, J. M., & Cicerelli, R. E. (2024). Bibliometric aspects of scientific
publications on the circular economy and landfill. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 18(6), Article
e05736. https://doi.org/10.24857/RGSA.V18N6-018
4. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a biblio-
metric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 133, 285-296.
5. Hasan, T., Sheikh, M. S., Hossain, M. L., & Hoque, M. B. (2025). A comprehensive review of solid
waste management in the textile industry. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2025.2550365
6. Hasibuan, G. C. R., Al Fath, M. T., Yusof, N., Dewi, R. A., Syafridon, G. G. A., Jaya, I., Anas, M. R.,
& Syahrizal. (2025). Integrating circular economy into construction and demolition waste management:
A bibliometric review of sustainable engineering practices in the built environment. Case Studies in
Chemical and Environmental Engineering, 11, Article 101159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2025.101159
7. Ho, M. H. C., Liu, J. S., & Chang, K. C. T. (2017). To include or not: the role of review papers in cita-
tion-based analysis. Scientometrics, 110(1), 65-76.
8. Miranda, R., & Garcia-Carpintero, E. (2018). Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in
the most cited papers. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1015-1030.
9. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a compara-
tive analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228.
10. Negrete-Cardoso, M., Rosano-Ortega, G., Álvarez-Aros, E. L., Tavera-Cortés, M. E., Vega-Lebrún, C.
A., & Sánchez-Ruíz, F. J. (2022). Circular economy strategy and waste management: A bibliometric
analysis in its contribution to sustainable development, toward a post-COVID-19 era. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18703-3
11. Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A
comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of informetrics, 10(4), 1178-1195.
12. Potkány, M., Neykov, N., Streimikis, J., & Lesníková, P. (2024). Circular economy efficiency in the
context of waste management in the selected Central and Eastern European countries: Evidence from
DEA and fractional regression analysis. Economics and Sociology, 17(3), 175–195.
https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2024/17-3/10
13. Ranjbari, M., Saidani, M., Shams Esfandabadi, Z., Peng, W., Lam, S. S., Aghbashlo, M., Quatraro, F.,
& Tabatabaei, M. (2021). Two decades of research on waste management in the circular economy: In-
sights from bibliometric, text mining, and content analyses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, Arti-
cle 128009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128009
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2963 www.rsisinternational.org
14. Roy, M., Akbar, D., Rahman, A., & Rajapaksa, D. (2025). Trend and pattern of agri-food waste, envi-
ronmental sustainability and circular economy studies: A science mapping review. Circular Economy
and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-025-00647-8
15. Sarc, R., Curtis, A., Kandlbauer, L., Khodier, K., Lorber, K. E., & Pomberger, R. (2019). Digitalisation
and intelligent robotics in value chain of circular economy oriented waste management: A review.
Waste Management, 95, 476–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.06.035
16. Tanveer, M., Khan, S. A. R., Umar, M., Yu, Z., Sajid, M. J., & Haq, I. U. (2022). Waste management
and green technology: Future trends in circular economy leading towards environmental sustainability.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(53), 80161–80178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
022-23238-8
17. Uwuigbe, U., Issah, O., Ranti, U. O., Zubeiru, M., Anaba, S., & Seidu, A.-A. J. (2025). Circular econ-
omy: A bibliometric review of research in emerging economies (2010–2024). International Journal of
Energy Economics and Policy, 15(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.17021
18. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational
research methods, 18(3), 429-472.