Analysis finds regulatory support and technical training influence circular economy practices in rice and sugarcane sectors, indicating a need for structured support.
The transition to circular economy (CE) is very critical for sustainable development in industrial sector however, its adoption remains limited particularly in developing countries. This study examines the selected institutional factors influencing adoption intensity of circular economy (CE) practices among sugarcane and rice processors in Kisumu, Siaya, and Busia counties in Western Kenya. Given the rising waste crisis in Kenya coupled with- Western Kenya’s growing need for sustainable industrial practices, this study assesses the key institutional drivers of adoption intensity of circular economy practices, among them, technical training, regulatory support, extension services, policy awareness, NGO support, and access to grants. A census survey of 19 processors of sugarcane and rice was conducted using structured questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, this study combines qualitative insights with quantitative analysis through an ordered logistic regression model. Descriptive statistics indicate a low level of access to technical training (M = 2.368, SD = 0.955), insufficient regulatory support (M = 1.842, SD = 1.425), and a lack of awareness regarding CE-related policies (M = 1.632, SD = 1.674). The regression analysis shows that technical training (β = 2.852, p = 0.032), regulatory support (β = 1.115, p = 0.09), and availability of grants (β = 1.532, p = 0.072) significantly affect the intensity of adoption. Conversely, support from NGOs and awareness of policies have less pronounced correlations with adoption. These results highlight the necessity of structured institutional support, financial incentives, and regulatory frameworks in promoting CE adoption. Additionally, the study recommends for minimization of waste and increased resource efficiency in Western Kenya’s sugarcane and rice processing sector.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamau et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: