IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i22p10177-d1794110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uneven Progress in Circular Economy Practices: Local Government Approaches to Waste Management in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Karishma Don

    (Ararat Jobs and Technology Precinct, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC 3350, Australia
    Institute of Innovation, Science and Sustainability, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC 3350, Australia)

  • Ayon Chakraborty

    (Institute of Innovation, Science and Sustainability, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC 3350, Australia)

  • Tim Harrison

    (Ararat Rural City Council, Ararat, VIC 3377, Australia)

  • Harpinder Sandhu

    (Ararat Jobs and Technology Precinct, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC 3350, Australia
    Institute of Innovation, Science and Sustainability, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC 3350, Australia)

Abstract

Household waste systems are a frontline test of Australia’s circular economy transition, yet progress remains highly uneven and structurally constrained. Despite strong national targets for resource recovery and emissions reduction, local governments are expected to deliver circular outcomes without uniform access to infrastructure, funding, or technical capability. This study assesses the status, implementation, and progress of household waste management, energy recovery, and circular economy initiatives at the local government level in Australia. Using content analysis of data from 520 local government areas across six states, the study maps differences in service provision (e.g., general waste, mixed recycling, and food organics and garden organics [FOGO] collection), policy instruments, public-facing education, and participation in circular economy programs. The findings reveal that while a majority (92.5%) of councils provide general waste bins, 47% offer FOGO bins, and 78% supply mixed recyclable bins, only a small fraction (2.6%) offers a separate glass bin stream. Fewer than one in ten councils reference any form of energy recovery or waste-to-energy initiative, indicating that resource–energy integration remains emergent and geographically concentrated. Despite national policies such as the National Waste Policy Action Plan, significant regional disparities persist, particularly between metropolitan and rural councils. Guided by environmental governance theory and systems thinking, the study shows how policy fragmentation, funding limitations, and infrastructure inequities create systemic barriers to circularity. The study concludes by recommending targeted co-funding for rural councils, stronger policy support for organics and energy recovery infrastructure, and more coherent multi-level governance to achieve Australia’s 2030 waste and circular economy targets. This research contributes an evidence-based framework for understanding how governance structures and resource asymmetries shape local progress toward a circular economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Karishma Don & Ayon Chakraborty & Tim Harrison & Harpinder Sandhu, 2025. "Uneven Progress in Circular Economy Practices: Local Government Approaches to Waste Management in Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-27, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:22:p:10177-:d:1794110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/22/10177/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/22/10177/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:22:p:10177-:d:1794110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.