Systematic literature review identifies strategies for integrating circular economy into post-disaster practices, suggesting pathways for sustainability.
The increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters pose significant challenges for the built environment, especially during post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. Traditional linear rebuilding practices often focus on rapid implementation and cost reduction, sometimes at the expense of sustainability, resource efficiency, and long-term resilience. In recent years, the Circular Economy (CE) has emerged as a promising and innovative approach to addressing these systemic issues. By prioritizing resource loops through reduction, reuse, recycling, and designing for adaptability, CE offers a more regenerative and resilient model for rebuilding. Despite its potential, a consistent and comprehensive Build Back Circular framework specific to post-disaster contexts is still underdeveloped. This study presents a systematic literature review of 30 peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings to examine how CE principles can be operationalized in post-disaster recovery to support sustainable rebuilding practices. The review identifies two dominant domains where CE integration offers the greatest leverage: disaster waste management and post-disaster shelter design. The finding shows CE integration into waste management occurs through three identified clusters, including (i) Waste Handling & Processing; (ii) Digitalization & Traceability; (iii) Material Recovery & Circular Flows, and the design shelter-related CE strategies occur through four identified clusters, including (i) Material Circularity in Shelter Design; (ii) Design for Circularity Principles; (iii) Flexibility & Adaptability; (iv) Durability & Long-Term Performance. This study adds to the ongoing discussion on sustainable reconstruction by proposing a systems-based approach that aligns environmental, social, and economic goals in the wake of disasters, ultimately aiding long-term community resilience and sustainability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khashei et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: