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

Karishma Don (), Ayon Chakraborty, Tim Harrison and Harpinder Sandhu
Additional contact information
Karishma Don: Ararat Jobs and Technology Precinct, 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

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 22, 1-27

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.

Keywords: circular economy; waste management; local government; sustainability; policy implementation; municipal waste (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/22/10177/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/22/10177/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:22:p:10177-:d:1794110

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().