Next Article in Journal
Assessing Development Opportunity Loss in River Source Area Based on Comparison of Cumulative Growth Rates of Per Capita GDP
Previous Article in Journal
Subsidy Ceilings and Sequential Synergy: Steering Sustainable Outcomes Through Dynamic Thresholds in China’s Urban Renewal Tripartite Game
Previous Article in Special Issue
Green Innovation, Export Synergy, and Total Factor Productivity: Evidence from China’s Marine Enterprises
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 19
10.3390/su17198722
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Identifying Circularity in Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Review

by
Héctor Guadalupe Ramírez-Escamilla
,
María Concepción Martínez-Rodríguez
*,
Diego Domínguez-Solís
*,
Ana Laura Cervantes-Nájera
and
Lorena Elizabeth Campos-Villegas
Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigaciones y Estudios Sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo (CIIEMAD), Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Mexico City 07340, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(19), 8722; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198722
Submission received: 1 September 2025 / Revised: 23 September 2025 / Accepted: 24 September 2025 / Published: 28 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Innovation, Circular Economy and Sustainability Transition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) represent an alternative for achieving environmental and resilience goals in diverse global contexts with varying needs. As such, NBS can be understood as processes involving actions that promote circular economy (CE) strategies within their function. Therefore, this research aims to conduct a systematic literature review to identify and analyze the main NBS applied and explore how they are associated with CE strategies. This study performs a systematic literature review of NBS and their relationship with the CE using the PRISMA methodology, analyzing a total of 32 articles retrieved from the SCOPUS database. The main NBS include constructed wetlands, green infrastructure, and soil restoration and enrichment solutions. Constructed wetlands are linked to strategies such as recycling and reuse due to their role in treating urban and domestic wastewater for reuse, thereby increasing water availability. Green infrastructure is associated with strategies like redesign and reduction, as it involves the use of lower-impact materials and designs for rainwater harvesting and thermal comfort improvement. Soil enrichment and remediation solutions are connected to reuse and recycling strategies, as most derive from organic waste composting or microorganisms. NBS and CE strategies highlight how these solutions not only provide direct environmental benefits but also, when analyzed from a sustainability perspective, can offer social and economic benefits. Furthermore, understanding their relationship will facilitate their integration into regulations for transitioning toward circularity in industries and cities. The contribution of this article lies in synthesizing and systematizing the evidence on how NBS operationalizes CE strategies, identifying the main mechanisms and gaps, and proposing a conceptual model that can guide future research and policy design.

1. Introduction

The shift toward sustainable development models demands integrated approaches to address complex, multifactorial environmental crises. In this context, Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) have been promoted as viable alternatives to restore ecosystems, enhance urban resilience, and tackle risks such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity. As Kabisch et al. [1] assert, “NBS combine ecological, social, and economic benefits, emerging as multifunctional solutions for contemporary cities”.
Conversely, the Circular Economy (CE) paradigm calls for redesigning production and consumption systems to minimize waste and keep materials in use for as long as possible. According to Geissdoerfer et al. [2], “CE aims to close resource loops through strategies like reuse, recycling, and valorization”. Although these two approaches have developed along parallel paths, there is growing recognition of their potential synergies. Soini and Dessein et al. [3] highlight that “NBS can act as enablers of circular strategies, particularly in decentralized water management and urban nutrient recycling”. This convergence is especially relevant in densely populated areas, where pressure on natural resources demands innovative and regenerative solutions.
The integration of NBS and CE has also been explored in spatial and urban planning. Pauleit et al. [4] emphasize that “NBS help build more circular cities by facilitating water infiltration, soil recovery, and material reuse”. Similarly, Zhu et al. [5] note that “green spaces can be designed with a circular logic, where resources like water, organic matter, and energy flow in closed loops within the urban system”. From a practical standpoint, an increasing number of cases demonstrate the feasibility of this hybrid approach. Albert et al. [6] document how regenerating post-industrial areas with urban vegetation achieves “ecological restoration while incorporating circular design principles”. Likewise, McPhearson et al. [7] stress that collaborative governance is key to ensuring NBS function as circular nodes for local resource management.
The incorporation of these strategies into public policy has also gained traction. Cohen-Shacham et al. [8] argue that “recognizing NBS as legitimate instruments of environmental policy is critical for their scaling and integration with CE regulatory frameworks”. Hence, Corgo et al. [9] recommend developing shared metrics to assess their effectiveness across environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Against this backdrop of conceptual and practical convergence, this study systematically analyzes how NBS implemented between 2019 and 2025 integrate CE principles, identifying their benefits, limitations, and replicability potential. By doing so, it aims to contribute to a robust analytical framework to strengthen their adoption in urban and industrial territories transitioning toward sustainability.
The aim of this systematic review is to integrate and critically analyze the existing body of literature on nature-based solutions and the circular economy, highlighting their conceptual intersections and practical applications. Specifically, the study seeks to (i) identify the methodological approaches most frequently employed in this research field, (ii) synthesize the reported environmental, social, and economic outcomes, and (iii) detect current knowledge gaps and propose future research directions that could strengthen the integration of both frameworks in sustainability science and practice.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is based on a systematic review of the literature to demonstrate the relationship between nature-based solutions and the circular economy. The research provides a detailed overview of how circular economy strategies are intrinsically linked to NBS, focusing also on identifying how these solutions incorporate specific circular practices. The systematic review followed the three-stage process proposed by Tranfield et al. [10]. However, the screening and inclusion process was represented graphically using a PRISMA flow diagram adapted from Haddaway et al. [11], to enhance clarity and transparency (Table S1).

2.1. Systematic Literature Review

A systematic literature review serves as a rigorous method for examining empirical evidence. In this study, we employ this approach to effectively identify and analyze articles that focus exclusively on NBS case studies while recognizing the CE strategies they promote. This methodology minimizes bias in study inclusion/exclusion, ensuring a transparent and reliable review process. Furthermore, the implementation of defined criteria allows for the replication of presented results.
For the literature search, we exclusively selected the Scopus database due to its comprehensive coverage of academic publications and its established reputation as the most recommended source for systematic reviews compared to other databases, as demonstrated in previous evaluations [12,13]. Scopus provides sophisticated search capabilities with complex and meticulous query functions, which proved essential for information retrieval in this review [14].
The review was not restricted by time period. Specific keywords (see Section 2.1.1) and defined eligibility criteria (see Section 2.1.2) were established to guide the identification and selection of relevant articles.

2.1.1. Keyword-Based Selection Process

The search was conducted using the logical operator AND to maximize the retrieval of relevant articles, including the following keywords: “nature-based solutions” AND “circular economy”. Based on this search, a total of 174 documents were identified. This selection criterion allowed the authors to focus specifically on articles that apply the use of NBS from a circular economy perspective.

2.1.2. Eligibility Criteria

The review implemented systematic eligibility criteria to define the document set for analysis. The selection included only case study articles, excluding other document types such as review articles, conference papers, book chapters, and editorials. This ensured high-quality manuscripts and focused exclusively on applied NBS cases. To maintain consistency and accessibility, the review considered only English-language articles. This filtering step reduced the dataset to 88 articles.
Step 1—Identification: A total of 174 documents were retrieved from Scopus using the defined search string.
Step 2—Screening: Initial filters were applied based on language (English only) and type of publication (peer-reviewed journal articles). This step excluded 86 records, leaving 88 articles. Screening at this stage followed the criteria summarized in Table 1.
For instance, studies that did not describe the functions of NBS were excluded, as were those that did not specify the case study or did not present information on benefits across the three pillars of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental). This was essential for analyzing the associated CE strategies.
Step 3—Eligibility: The 40 articles were assessed in full text to verify their relevance and alignment with the research objectives.
Step 4—Inclusion: After excluding 3 studies not addressing NBS and 5 not addressing CE, a total of 32 articles were included in the final dataset for analysis.
Figure 1 presents the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied at each selection stage, showing the progression of included and excluded documents throughout the screening process.

3. Results

This section presents key nature-based solutions (NBS) that incorporate circular economy (CE) strategies, including ecosystem regeneration, wastewater recycling, and others. Through a systematic review of relevant studies, these findings provide a comprehensive perspective on the effectiveness of such solutions, demonstrating how circular approaches in NBS significantly contribute to sustainability by improving resource-use efficiency, enhancing ecosystem resilience, and generating social benefits in their implementation areas.
The analysis of the 32 selected articles focused on publication year (Section 3.1), country-level productivity (Section 3.2), and related CE strategies in NBS implementation (Section 3.3). This approach enabled mapping of knowledge and progress in the relationship between these two fields. The systematic review methodology significantly contributed to these descriptive findings by providing a rigorous, structured framework for identifying, selecting, and evaluating relevant studies. This approach ensured the inclusion of high-quality research, thereby strengthening the validity of the results obtained [15].
Table 2 presents the 32 articles selected for this review, summarizing their main contributions to analyzing the NBS-CE relationship. It details the NBS approaches and applications examined, the integrated circular strategies, and key benefits or findings from each study.

3.1. Publication Year

The timeframe, as shown in Figure 2, spans from 2019 to the present year of 2025 (June) when this study was conducted. The data reveals consistent growth in research focused on NBS within the CE framework. While the NBS concept was first mentioned by the World Bank in 2008, it was officially defined by the European Commission in 2015 [48]. The CE concept gained prominence in 2017, with analysis of the connection between these two concepts emerging years later in 2019. A notable peak occurred in 2024, likely influenced by the United Nations Environment Programme’s report “From Grey to Green: Better Data to Finance Nature in Cities–State of Finance for Nature in Cities 2024”, which emphasized the urgent need to mobilize investments toward green infrastructure and nature-based solutions as part of sustainable urban transformation [49]. Furthermore, the increasing relevance of this topic to CE aspects is primarily driven by heightened environmental awareness, innovation in sustainable infrastructure, and governmental and regulatory policies that promote the adoption of such strategies.

3.2. Global Productivity

Based on the literature review, it was identified that most of the studies are from Brazil (5 articles), Greece (4 articles), and Italy (4 articles). Figure 3 shows the concentration of studies by country. This information is valuable for understanding the effects of the present study, as well as any gaps in the data.
The productivity of these countries in these research areas can be explained by contextual factors. In Brazil, legislation incorporating circular economy (CE) perspectives has driven projects implementing related strategies. NBS have been recognized as essential approaches for addressing environmental, social, and economic challenges, including climate change, water security, urban resilience, and biodiversity loss, with particular focus on mitigating water stress [50].
In Greece, NBS are increasingly employed to address environmental challenges such as flooding, water scarcity, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss. Studies have examined the effectiveness potential of NBS through land-cover modifications, retention ponds, and natural water retention measures in river basins like Sarantapotamos and Spercheios [51,52].
Similarly, Italy’s position as a leading contributor of NBS research demonstrates the effectiveness of solutions such as green roofs, infiltration basins, and green corridors. The country’s CE-oriented strategy for resource and space recovery is rooted in public acceptance of NBS, influenced by climate risk exposure, willingness to pay, and preferences for participatory planning and biodiversity conservation [53,54].

3.3. NBS Identification

The analysis of the article, which focuses on NBS, is presented in Figure 4. The most prominent solutions are constructed wetlands (38%), followed by green infrastructure such as green roofs and walls (34%), and finally soil/water enrichment and remediation techniques–including biochar application, composting, and phytoextraction (28%). These preferences demonstrate a clear prioritization of approaches leveraging natural processes to restore ecosystems, manage wastewater, and enhance environmental quality. The studies reflect the increasing value of NBS and CE strategies, which enable tackling environmental challenges through approaches adaptable to diverse contexts.

3.4. Circular Strategies in the NBS

Figure 5 displays the circular economy (CE) strategies examined in the reviewed literature. Redesign dominates at 35%, reflecting a strong focus on transforming or creating processes and infrastructures to enhance sustainability from inception through ecological and functional integration. Recycling and reuse follow at 24% each, highlighting the importance of converting materials and extending resource lifespans within systems. Reduction appears at 18%, indicating efforts to minimize resource consumption through processes with lower waste generation than conventional alternatives. Finally, repurposing represents just 1%, showing limited research focus on waste transformation into new products—primarily observed in studies of composting or biochar for soil enrichment.
The application of these strategies within NBS demonstrates how CE and NBS share fundamental principles aimed at reducing environmental impact, restoring ecosystems, and optimizing resource use. This synergy establishes their interconnection as promoters of sustainability’s three pillars: economic, social, and environmental. Identifying CE strategies associated with NBS not only facilitates integrated approaches to address complex environmental crises and advance regenerative development models but also proves crucial for policy integration. Such recognition validates NBS as CE-aligned actions that enhance resilient production systems amid climate challenges.

4. Discussion

This analysis aims to provide a renewed and comprehensive perspective on CE practices within identified NBS. It is essential to recognize that NBS functions as dynamic processes that harness and enhance natural ecosystem functions to address social and environmental challenges—including water management, climate adaptation, and soil restoration. As inherently living and adaptive processes, certain NBS integrate multiple functions and benefits, delivering services such as water purification, climate regulation, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity habitat restoration. This process-oriented logic fundamentally links NBS to CE principles, as they directly promote efficient and regenerative resource use while closing natural cycles and avoiding negative externalities. Consequently, when identifying and designing NBS, it becomes possible to recognize CE strategies that optimize material, energy, and service flows in harmony with ecosystems.
To this end, the following section discusses findings from this review concerning the three primary NBS categories, focusing on how specific CE strategies are being advanced through their implementation. In addition, within the discussion for each of the solutions, an analysis of limitations, trade-offs, and context-specific factors that influence the success of these solutions will be conducted.

4.1. Constructed Wetlands

The reviewed literature predominantly addressed constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. These systems replicate natural wetland ecological processes but are engineered and managed to maximize purification of urban and domestic wastewater, while also providing environmental restoration and often serving as platforms for environmental education and CE principles in wastewater management [47].
Various constructed wetland types with distinct characteristics were identified. Studies featured vertical flow wetlands (VF-CWs) demonstrating high removal efficiencies: up to 95% for COD, 99% for turbidity, and 96% for UV254 absorbance [27]. Similarly, Hernández-Crespo et al. [28] studied intensified vertical flow constructed wetlands (VFCWs) and free water surface constructed wetlands (FWSCWs), noting their dual role in water quality improvement and local biodiversity enhancement.
These eco-technologies are increasingly implemented for practical sustainability goals: augmenting non-potable water supplies for domestic/agricultural use and complying with discharge regulations [29]. Complementary approaches include secondary wastewater treatment via horizontal subsurface flow wetlands and the role of constructed wetlands in the green economy through substituting synthetic fibers with process-derived natural materials [31,37].
Further studies focus on optimizing species selection for cost-effective treatment. Reference [36] demonstrated efficient, low-maintenance decentralized wetlands using Canna × generalis, while López-Serrano et al. [38] highlighted vertical flow systems reducing operational costs while generating environmental-economic benefits. Some designs incorporate recycled media to treat industrial process water, providing additional waste reduction and on-site effluent treatment advantages [39].
As evidenced, research on wastewater treatment using constructed wetlands promotes circular economy strategies such as redesign. This approach requires site-specific integration where solutions must minimize environmental impact while maximizing treated water volume. Furthermore, these solutions serve dual purposes by enabling habitat restoration and on-site species recovery, demonstrating their advantage over conventional wastewater alternatives. At the same time, the primary objective of domestic and urban wastewater treatment is aligned with recycling and reuse strategies, as treated water can be reused for similar processes or in different applications. [43,46]. Furthermore, biomass extracted from organic waste can be converted into bioenergy (biogas, bioethanol) or used as a feedstock for value-added products, such as natural fiber-reinforced composites, further fostering circularity and creating a valuable byproduct [37,55].

Limitations or Requirements in Constructed Wetlands

Therefore, it can be observed that constructed wetland application processes depend on determining optimal operating parameters, sizing and optimizing hydraulic components to accommodate higher flow rates, and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of expanding the treatment system relative to other technologies [27]. Furthermore, each configuration, for example, vertical flow, hybrid systems, and aeration, can improve performance and contaminant removal efficiency; however, they can increase complexity and costs [56]. This, in turn, will require large areas of land, which is a fundamental obstacle, especially in densely populated or urban areas where land is scarce and expensive [57,58].
On the other hand, these types of solutions prove to be controlled processes or dependent on the type of materials and species used, since studies have identified that climatic conditions play an important role in the efficiency of treatment and the reduction in biological activity [59]. Likewise, they require trained personnel with knowledge in the area capable of carrying out maintenance and monitoring, which in turn will require additional costs, regulatory frameworks for their conservation, and citizen responsibility over these spaces [58,60].
Overcoming their limitations, constructed wetlands are not just a simple wastewater treatment method; they are a key solution for the circular economy. They enable the recovery and reuse of valuable resources, closing cycles that are typically open. Specifically, they allow for the purification of water for agricultural and industrial applications while also recovering essential nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen, which can be reused as fertilizers. This process transforms what was once considered waste into new products and inputs, fostering a regenerative model.

4.2. Green Infrastructure

Green infrastructure (GI) has become a fundamental strategy for creating more resilient, sustainable, and livable cities through the integration of natural systems into urban environments. These solutions promote essential environmental functions such as water management, air quality improvement, thermal regulation, biodiversity enhancement, and even the revitalization of abandoned spaces. Beyond improving physical surroundings, they drive social inclusion, urban quality of life, community well-being, and built environment sustainability [30,41].
Recent studies emphasize the versatility and effectiveness of GI in addressing urban and environmental challenges. Viljanen et al. [19] and Apostolaki [17] highlight how GI minimizes impacts from heat waves, floods, and droughts by facilitating stormwater recovery and redistribution within urban systems. Aguirre-Álvarez et al. [26] demonstrate this through applications like rain gardens, biofilters, and green walls, which prove effective in treating light greywater by removing turbidity, ammonia nitrogen, phosphates, and COD. At a broader scale, Sharp et al. [34] propose green infrastructure as part of circular urban planning aimed at achieving net-zero emissions, confirming these solutions serve as crucial carbon sinks in cities lacking such spaces.
This NBS promotes CE strategies including redesign and reduction, involving the creation of buildings that incorporate low-impact materials and integrate green spaces, thereby decreasing traditional material use while preserving landscapes, enhancing biodiversity, reducing emissions, and supporting circular cultural initiatives [22,35]. Green infrastructure also connects to recycling strategies through stormwater recovery and contributes to contaminated soil restoration [23], ensuring water and food security while improving urban health. These benefits align directly with various Sustainable Development Goals [40], demonstrating how green infrastructure operationalizes circular economy principles through comprehensive environmental, social, and economic value creation.

Limitations or Requirements in Green Infrastructure

Despite its recognized ecological, social, and economic benefits, Green Infrastructure (GI) faces significant limitations that hinder its large-scale implementation. One of the main barriers lies in its technical and design aspects, since, unlike traditional “gray” infrastructure, GI lacks standardized design and performance specifications, making it less predictable and difficult to scale [61,62,63]. Technical challenges also stem from the inadequacy of urban soils, which often results in high plant mortality due to urban stressors and requires the use of specialized artificial soils (Technosols) to support vegetation [64].
Also, economic and political barriers are significant hurdles. High initial installation costs and continuous maintenance can discourage investment, partly because the economic benefits of GI are often difficult to quantify in a tangible way. This creates a discrepancy between the perceived value of GI and its financial analysis, limiting private sector involvement [65]. At the policy level, ambiguous definitions and inconsistent policy frameworks hinder effective planning and holistic integration into urban development [66]. This fragmented governance, combined with insufficient political will, impedes the long-term success and upkeep of these projects [61,63].
Finally, social challenges and a lack of evidence also limit the effectiveness of GI. Projects may fail to address local needs or social equity without community participation. Furthermore, there is a disconnect between the multifunctional objectives of GI and the restrictive criteria often used for its implementation, such as prioritizing stormwater management over social and cultural benefits [67,68].
The potential of Green Infrastructure (GI) becomes evident once its limitations are overcome. Unlike conventional, energy-intensive infrastructures, GI reduces energy consumption through natural climate control. For example, green roofs and walls cool buildings, lowering the need for air conditioning in summer, while helping to conserve heat in winter, which reduces heating demands [40]. This ability to moderate urban temperatures, coupled with carbon capture, positions GI as a key component in the fight against climate change and the transition to a net-zero circular economy [69,70].
GI also contributes to a more circular economy by reducing the consumption of virgin materials and waste generation. Solutions like rain gardens and green walls often use recycled materials in their construction, while rainwater harvesting minimizes the demand for public water. This fosters the circular economy principle of “reduction” by preserving resources and lessening the need for expensive gray infrastructure systems. Additionally, by improving air and water quality, GI promotes public health, which in turn reduces healthcare costs, providing clear socioeconomic value to cities.

4.3. Soil or Water Enrichment and Remediation

Soil remediation and enrichment NBS focus on stimulating biological and ecological processes to regenerate soil quality, enhance fertility, and restore ecosystem services.
Studies like Regkouzas et al. [16] demonstrate the use of biochar and organic waste compost, showing significant improvements in agricultural soil fertility and crop yields. This represents a closed-loop system for organic waste with environmental, social, and economic benefits. In industrial contexts, Agrawal & Ragauskas [18] propose green solvents, bioleaching, and biosorption to counter extractive impacts from conventional mining, serving as soil remediation processes. Identified cases include Organism-Based Risk Management restoring contaminated lands and repurposing abandoned urban sites [24], and composting as a bioremediation agent reducing mercury bioavailability, which contributes to ecosystem service recovery in affected areas [25].
This category of NBS also employs aquatic plants and organisms for soil and water purification. Examples include using duckweed in fish farms to reduce trophic index while generating biomass for nutraceuticals. Similarly, Fletcher et al. [42] explored phytoremediation with wild macrophytes for circular water quality improvement. Finally, Škufca et al. [45] demonstrated how high-rate algal ponds effectively remove nutrients and emerging contaminants while valorizing biomass, establishing a circular economy solution for wastewater treatment.
Regarding this type of NBS, strategies such as recycling and reuse were identified. These strategies demonstrate how remediated soils can be applied in new activities that require the use of that soil, in addition to representing the recovery of contaminated spaces and sites that may pose risks to human and ecosystem health. In the specific case of Rugani & Petucco [21], the readaptation strategy is evident. They analyzed the potential for reusing excavated soil as a substrate to develop green spaces and urban recreational areas, demonstrating the possibility of fostering circular models in the construction sector.

Limitations or Requirements in Soil or Water Enrichment and Remediation

Approaches to soil and water remediation, while essential for managing environmental pollution, face significant limitations that challenge their large-scale implementation. One of the most notable barriers is the cost and scalability of the treatments. Many methods, especially physicochemical techniques that excavate and treat soil off-site, are both expensive and time-consuming [71,72,73]. Large-scale or deep contamination often makes remediation impractical, not only due to logistics but also because of strict regulations on hazardous waste [73]. Furthermore, aggressive treatments carry environmental risks, such as damaging soil structure, leading to a long-term loss of its functionality, and the possibility of secondary groundwater contamination if pollutants are not fully removed [74,75,76].
Technical and contextual challenges further complicate the application of these methods. There is no universal solution; the effectiveness of remediation largely depends on the specific properties of the soil and the type, concentration, and location of the contaminants [71,72]. For example, low-permeability soils like clay are difficult to treat with conventional methods, requiring specialized approaches [77]. While biological and ecological technologies, such as phytoremediation, are more environmentally friendly, they often require longer treatment times and may be less effective for high concentrations of pollutants [77,78,79].
Once their limitations are overcome, soil and water remediation become a fundamental pillar of the circular economy. These practices do not just clean up contaminated ecosystems; they actively close resource loops. By recovering the value of degraded soil and water, they eliminate the need to extract new resources, such as land for construction or water for agriculture [80]. This approach supports the regeneration of natural systems, helping to preserve finite resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is perfectly aligned with the goals of sustainability and the circular economy [81,82]. Overall, the findings demonstrate that research on NBS and CE has gained significant momentum in recent years, with notable regional concentrations and a predominance of constructed wetlands and green infrastructure as applied solutions. The analysis confirms that CE strategies such as redesign, reuse, and recycling are central to the implementation of NBS, though strategies like repurposing remain underexplored. These patterns reveal both the potential and the limitations of current approaches, underscoring the need for more diverse case studies, methodological innovation, and policy-oriented research. By integrating these insights, NBS can more effectively contribute to the transition towards circularity in environmental management and urban systems.

5. Conclusions

The systematic literature review on the linkage between NBS and CE strategies highlights that these solutions not only provide direct environmental benefits but also, when analyzed from a sustainability perspective, generate social and economic advantages. This aligns with the CE objective of closing material, energy, and water loops in urban and productive systems.
Regarding scientific output, the 32 reviewed articles show an upward trend in publications over the last decade, especially since 2018. This indicates a growing interest from the academic community in integrating NbS into CE frameworks, driven by global challenges such as climate change, urban resilience, and resource efficiency. Productivity by country reveals that contributions are concentrated in emerging economies (e.g., Brazil, India, Colombia, Mexico) as well as in European countries (e.g., Greece, Italy, Spain, Poland, Finland, Sweden), reflecting both the urgency of implementing sustainable water and waste management strategies in developing contexts and the strong political, research, and innovation support in Europe for ‘circular’ technologies that reduce energy consumption, lower emissions, reduce inequalities, and have a lower environmental, social, and economic impact.
Across the three main types of NBS identified—constructed wetlands, green infrastructure, and soil remediation/enrichment—multiple mechanisms were observed through which these approaches foster circular principles such as recycling, reuse, redesign, reduction, and readaptation.
Constructed wetlands emerge as one of the most extensively studied solutions for treating urban and domestic wastewater. Their effectiveness is well documented, with removal rates often exceeding 90%. Beyond pollutant reduction, they enable the reuse of treated water, increasing on-site availability for domestic or agricultural purposes. The use of recycled materials in wetland construction, the incorporation of organic residues such as bagasse, husks, compost, or other agricultural by-products as substrates, and the integration of native plant species make this solution both replicable and adaptable to local contexts, representing a redesign of conventional treatment systems towards nature-based principles. Moreover, constructed wetlands enhance circularity by valorizing waste materials, offering significant economic and environmental benefits. They can be built with recycled or organic components, reducing the demand for new resources, while the biomass generated may be converted into bioenergy or other value-added products. With lower operating costs and a reduced environmental footprint compared to conventional systems, they exemplify how a regenerative approach can be both economically viable and ecologically sound.
Green infrastructure is consolidated as a key instrument in the transition towards circular and resilient urban models. As shown in the reviewed studies, these solutions reduce demand for conventional construction resources and support CE principles through practices such as rainwater harvesting and the remediation of contaminated soils. Their versatility makes them applicable in both rural and urban contexts, contributing to community well-being and climate action.
NBS related to soil and water remediation and enrichment were also found to apply circular strategies such as reuse of organic waste, living organisms, and phytoremediating plants. These practices restore soil functions, reduce contaminant loads, and promote the recovery of ecosystems, facilitating a transition towards a regenerative, low-waste economy.
Overall, the findings of this review emphasize that NBS not only address ecological challenges such as water management and ecosystem restoration but also operationalize CE principles through concrete solutions that mimic, restore, and enhance natural processes. This enables a balance between environmental gains and socioeconomic outcomes.
As recommendations for future research, it is suggested to evaluate the feasibility of NBS through Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) to determine trade-offs and synergies between environmental and economic contributions across their life span. It is also necessary to analyze the role of regulatory frameworks, governance instruments, and financial mechanisms that can enhance the value of these solutions and ensure their integration into circular economy policies and legislation.
For now, this research seeks to highlight the perspectives of different research projects on NBS and how they seek to associate it with CE actions. Critically, these may or may not be completely circular and merely a management aspect. Therefore, we suggest conducting an assessment based on circularity indicators to refute whether or not it is a solution associated with CE.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17198722/s1, Table S1: PRISMA 2020 Checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.G.R.-E. and D.D.-S.; Methodology, H.G.R.-E. and M.C.M.-R.; Software, D.D.-S. and M.C.M.-R.; Validation, H.G.R.-E. and L.E.C.-V.; Formal analysis, D.D.-S. and H.G.R.-E.; Investigation, H.G.R.-E. and A.L.C.-N.; Resources, D.D.-S. and M.C.M.-R.; Data curation, H.G.R.-E. and M.C.M.-R.; Writing—original draft preparation, H.G.R.-E. and D.D.-S.; Writing—review and editing, H.G.R.-E. and D.D.-S.; Visualization, M.C.M.-R. and L.E.C.-V.; Supervision, M.C.M.-R. and L.E.C.-V.; Project administration, H.G.R.-E. and D.D.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kabisch, N.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Pauleit, S.; Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Artmann, M.; Haase, D.; Knapp, S.; Korn, H.; Stadler, J.; et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Soini, K.; Dessein, J. Culture-Sustainability Relation: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2016, 8, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pauleit, S.; Zölch, T.; Hansen, R.; Randrup, T.B.; Van Den Bosch, C.K. Nature-Based Solutions and Climate Change—Four shades of green. In Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhu, L.; Gao, C.; Wu, M.; Zhu, R. Integrating Blue–Green Infrastructure with Gray Infrastructure for Climate-Resilient Surface Water Flood Management in the Plain River Networks. Land 2025, 14, 634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Albert, C.; Brillinger, M.; Guerrero, P.; Gottwald, S.; Henze, J.; Schmidt, S.; Ott, E.; Schröter, B. Planning nature-based solutions: Principles, steps, and insights. AMBIO 2020, 50, 1446–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. McPhearson, T.; Cook, E.M.; Berbés-Blázquez, M.; Cheng, C.; Grimm, N.B.; Andersson, E.; Barbosa, O.; Chandler, D.G.; Chang, H.; Chester, M.V.; et al. A social-ecological-technological systems framework for urban ecosystem services. One Earth 2022, 5, 505–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Walters, G.; Janzen, C.; Maginnis, Y.S. (Eds.) Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges; IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Corgo, J.; Cruz, S.S.; Conceição, P. Nature-based solutions in spatial planning and policies for climate change adaptation: A literature review. AMBIO 2024, 53, 1599–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing Evidence-Informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022, 18, e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. AlRyalat, S.A.S.; Malkawi, L.W.; Momani, S.M. Comparing bibliometric analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. J. Vis. Exp. 2019, 152, e58494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2007, 22, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Anker, M.S.; Hadzibegovic, S.; Lena, A.; Haverkamp, W. The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. ESC Heart Fail. 2019, 6, 1291–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Paré, G.; Trudel, M.-C.; Jaana, M.; Kitsiou, S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Inf. Manag. 2014, 52, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Regkouzas, P.; Katie, N.; Bontiotis, K.; Stefanakis, A. Effect of compost and compost-derived biochar on lettuce growth in a water and wastewater irrigated pot experiment. Nat.-Based Solut. 2025, 7, 100220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Apostolaki, S. Nature-based solutions: From flood defense to addressing water scarcity and climate change risks. Nat.-Based Solut. 2025, 7, 100233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Agrawal, R.; Ragauskas, A.J. Sustainable recovery of Rare Earth Elements (REEs) from coal and coal ash through urban mining: A Nature Based Solution (NBS) for circular economy. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 384, 125411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Viljanen, A.; Harju, C.; Harmanen, J.; Lähtinen, K.; Toppinen, A. Toward resilient urban environments: Transition pathways in nature-based solutions. Futures 2025, 169, 103595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Phal, R.; Sasaki, N.; Tsusaka, T.W.; Abe, I.; Winijkul, E. Integrating Nature-Based Solutions into Circular Economy Practices: A Case Study on Achieving Net-Zero Emissions at the Asian Institute of Technology. Environments 2025, 12, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rugani, B.; Petucco, C. Environmental benefits of re-using excavated soil flows: The case of Luxembourg. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 958, 177867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ioannides, C.; Tsatsou, A.; Mamais, D.; Malamis, S.; Tsimiklis, G.; Tsiakou, D.; Tsiropoulos, Z.; Michailidou, M.; Tzourtziotis, A.; Karaberi, C.; et al. Urban agriculture as a nature-based solution to foster circularity in cities: The case study of Trikala, Greece. Urban Water J. 2025, 22, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rugani, B.; Pölling, B.; Della Casa, M.; Guidolotti, G.; Baldacchini, C.; Timpe, A.; Calfapietra, C. Coupled life cycle assessment and business modelling to estimate the sustainability of using regenerated soils in urban forestry as nature-based solutions. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 95, 128327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chowdhury, S.; Volchko, Y.; Norrman, J. A Framework for Upgrading Contaminated Urban Land and Soil by Nature-Based Solutions: Demonstration with a Swedish Case. Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rengifo-Mosquera, G.; Salas-Moreno, M.; Gutierréz-Palacios, H.; Palacios-Torres, Y.; Romaña-Palacios, A.; Marrugo-Negrete, J. Composting as a Sustainable Solution for the Management of Plant Biomass Contaminated with Hg and As from Puddles Generated by Small-Scale Gold Mining in the Municipality of Unión Panamericana, Colombian Pacific. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aguirre-Álvarez, E.; Lizárraga-Mendiola, L.; Coronel-Olivares, C.; Tavizón-Pozos, J.A.; Vázquez-Rodríguez, G.A. Performance of Construction and Demolition Waste Coupled with Selected Vascular Plants to Treat Gray Water in Nature-Based Solutions. Waste Biomass Valorization 2024, 15, 5463–5473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Da Silva Côgo Miguel, E.; Machado, B.S.; Teles, A.P.S.; Da Silva, T.F.; Filho, F.J.C.M.; Cavalheri, P.S. Optimizing sewage treatment by UV/H2O2 process and vertical flow constructed wetland integration. J. Water Process Eng. 2024, 64, 105580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hernández-Crespo, C.; Oliver, N.; Gil-Martínez, E.; Añó, M.; Fernández-Alba, S.; Benedito, V.; Montoya, T.; Martín, M. Integrating circular economy and biodiversity in upgrading full-scale constructed wetlands (LIFE Renaturwat). Ecol. Eng. 2024, 204, 107263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Da Rosa Sousa, A.; Pelissari, C.; Laureano, A.T.; Sezerino, P.H. Effluent quality and reuse potential of wastewater treated in constructed wetlands in Southern Brazil. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2024, 14, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Berta, M.; Bottero, M.; Dell’Anna, F.; Morgese, V. An Integrated Framework to Support Adaptive Reuse Urban Design: A Case Study in the City of Taranto (Italy). GEAM 2024, 1292, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sciuto, L.; Licciardello, F.; Barbera, A.C.; Scavera, V.; Musumeci, S.; Severino, M.; Cirelli, G.L. Is Biomethane Production from Common Reed Biomass Influenced by the Hydraulic Parameters of Treatment Wetlands? Sustainability 2024, 16, 2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Almeida, C.M.R.; Azevedo, T.; Guimarães, L. Constructed wetlands as nature based solutions—Hands-on activities to highlight their potential to minimize ocean pollution. J. Coast. Conserv. 2024, 28, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Heitzman, B.S.; Bueno, G.W.; Camargo, T.R.; Proença, D.C.; Yaekashi, C.T.O.; Da Silva, R.M.G.; Machado, L.P. Duckweed application in nature-based system for water phytoremediation and high-value coproducts at family agrisystem from a circular economy perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 919, 170714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sharp, D.; Raven, R.; Farrelly, M. Pluralising place frames in urban transition management: Net-zero transitions at precinct scale. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2023, 50, 100803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ternell, A.; Lagerqvist, B.; Nilsson, A.M.; Klie, M.S.; Berg, M.; Pedersen, M.A.-B.; Lasocki, M.; Kreidlmayer, M.; Oláh, C.; Szekér, Z.; et al. Multifunctional approach in ecosystem-centred urban planning and urban living labs in landscape conservation. Ecocycles 2024, 10, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Santos, W.A.D.; Rodrigues, G.A.; Soares, M.; Medeiros, R.C.; Decezaro, S.T. Constructed wetland for septic tank sludge management: Drained water quality under different operating strategies on a bench-scale experiment. Eng. Sanit. Ambient. 2024, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sharma, S.; Asolekar, S.R.; Thakur, V.K.; Asokan, P. Unlocking the potential: A paradigm-shifting approach for valorizing lignocellulosic waste biomass of constructed wetland enabling environmental and societal sustainability. Ind. Crops Prod. 2023, 207, 117709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. López-Serrano, M.J.; Lakho, F.H.; Van Hulle, S.W.H.; de la Fuente, A.B. Life cycle cost assessment and economic analysis of a decentralized wastewater treatment to achieve water sustainability within the framework of circular economy. Oeconomia Copernic. 2023, 14, 103–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Waly, M.M.; Mickovski, S.B.; Thomson, C. Application of circular economy in oil and gas produced water treatment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. De Oliveira, J.a.P.; Bellezoni, R.A.; Shih, W.-Y.; Bayulken, B. Innovations in Urban Green and Blue Infrastructure: Tackling local and global challenges in cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ricci, L. Integrated Approaches to Ecosystem Services: Linking Culture, Circular Economy and Environment through the Re-Use of Open Spaces and Buildings in Europe. Land 2022, 11, 1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fletcher, J.; Willby, N.; Oliver, D.M.; Quilliam, R.S. Resource recovery and freshwater ecosystem restoration—Prospecting for phytoremediation potential in wild macrophyte stands. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 7, 100050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ramírez-Agudelo, N.A.; De Pablo, J.; Roca, E. Exploring alternative practices in urban water management through the lens of circular economy–A case study in the Barcelona metropolitan area. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 329, 129565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ascione, G.S.; Cuomo, F.; Mariotti, N.; Corazza, L. Urban Living Labs, Circular Economy and Nature-Based Solutions: Ideation and testing of a new soil in the city of Turin using a multi-stakeholder perspective. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 1, 545–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Škufca, D.; Kovačič, A.; Prosenc, F.; Bulc, T.G.; Heath, D.; Heath, E. Phycoremediation of municipal wastewater: Removal of nutrients and contaminants of emerging concern. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 782, 146949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vera-Puerto, I.; Valdes, H.; Correa, C.; Agredano, R.; Vidal, G.; Belmonte, M.; Olave, J.; Arias, C. Proposal of competencies for engineering education to develop water infrastructure based on “Nature-Based Solutions” in the urban context. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Stefanakis, A. The role of constructed wetlands as green infrastructure for sustainable urban water management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; García, J. What are Nature-based solutions (NBS)? Setting core ideas for concept clarification. Nat.-Based Solut. 2022, 2, 100009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. United Nations Environment Programme. From Grey to Green: Better Data to Finance Nature in Cities—State of Finance for Nature in Cities 2024; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2024; Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/46453 (accessed on 25 August 2025).
  50. Suman, D.O.; Morais, M.; Saito, C.H. Solutions Based on Nature to Face Water Stress: Lessons from the Past and Present. Water 2024, 16, 2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Spyrou, C.; Loupis, M.; Charizopoulos, N.; Arvanitis, P.; Mentzafou, A.; Dimitriou, E.; Debele, S.E.; Sahani, J.; Kumar, P. Evaluating Nature-Based Solution for Flood Reduction in Spercheios River Basin Part 2: Early Experimental evidence. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Spyrou, C.; Loupis, M.; Charizopoulos, Ν.; Apostolidou, I.; Mentzafou, A.; Varlas, G.; Papadopoulos, A.; Dimitriou, E.; Panga, D.; Gkeka, L.; et al. Evaluating Nature-Based Solution for Flood Reduction in Spercheios River Basin under Current and Future Climate Conditions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pröbstl-Haider, U.; Wanner, A.; Feilhammer, M.; Mostegl, N.; Dabrowska, K. The right fit: Acceptance of nature-based solutions across European cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2024, 252, 105189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Di Pirro, E.; Sallustio, L.; Castellar, J.; Sgrigna, G.; Marchetti, M.; Lasserre, B. Facing Multiple Environmental Challenges through Maximizing the Co-Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions at a National Scale in Italy. Forests 2022, 13, 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Avellán, T.; Gremillion, P. Constructed wetlands for resource recovery in developing countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 99, 42–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ilyas, H.; Masih, I. Intensification of constructed wetlands for land area reduction: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 12081–12091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Soti, A.; Singh, S.; Verma, V.; Kulshreshtha, N.M.; Brighu, U.; Kalbar, P.; Gupta, A.B. Designing the vertical flow constructed wetland based on targeted limiting pollutant. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 351, 127068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Agaton, C.B.; Guila, P.M.C. Success Factors and Challenges: Implications of real Options Valuation of constructed wetlands as Nature-Based Solutions for Wastewater treatment. Resources 2024, 13, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Varma, M.; Gupta, A.K.; Ghosal, P.S.; Majumder, A. A review on performance of constructed wetlands in tropical and cold climate: Insights of mechanism, role of influencing factors, and system modification in low temperature. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 755, 142540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Murcia, J.A.G.; Jaramillo, F.; Wikström, S. Hurdles for implementation of constructed wetlands as Nature-based Solutions in Sweden. In Proceedings of the vEGU21: Gather Online, Online, 19–30 April 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zuniga-Teran, A.A.; Staddon, C.; De Vito, L.; Gerlak, A.K.; Ward, S.; Schoeman, Y.; Hart, A.; Booth, G. Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 63, 710–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Groffman, P.M.; Matsler, A.M.; Grabowski, Z.J. How reliable—and (net) beneficial—is the green in green infrastructure. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2023, 52, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Monteiro, R.; Ferreira, J.; Antunes, P. Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: An Integrated Literature Review. Land 2020, 9, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Deeb, M.; Groffman, P.M.; Blouin, M.; Egendorf, S.P.; Vergnes, A.; Vasenev, V.; Cao, D.L.; Walsh, D.; Morin, T.; Séré, G. Using constructed soils for green infrastructure—Challenges and limitations. SOIL 2020, 6, 413–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Liberalesso, T.; Cruz, C.O.; Silva, C.M.; Manso, M. Green infrastructure and public policies: An international review of green roofs and green walls incentives. Land Use Policy 2020, 96, 104693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dhakal, K.P.; Chevalier, L.R. Managing urban stormwater for urban sustainability: Barriers and policy solutions for green infrastructure application. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 203, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Finewood, M.H.; Matsler, A.M.; Zivkovich, J. Green infrastructure and the hidden politics of urban stormwater governance in a postindustrial city. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2019, 109, 909–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hoover, F.-A.; Meerow, S.; Coleman, E.; Grabowski, Z.; McPhearson, T. Why go green? Comparing rationales and planning criteria for green infrastructure in U.S. city plans. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 237, 104781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Choi, C.; Berry, P.; Smith, A. The climate benefits, co-benefits, and trade-offs of green infrastructure: A systematic literature review. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 291, 112583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Kim, D.; Song, S.-K. The Multifunctional Benefits of Green Infrastructure in Community Development: An analytical review based on 447 cases. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Liu, L.; Li, W.; Song, W.; Guo, M. Remediation techniques for heavy metal-contaminated soils: Principles and applicability. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 633, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ugrina, M.; Jurić, A. Current Trends and Future Perspectives in the Remediation of Polluted Water, Soil and Air—A Review. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 3270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mystrioti, C.; Papassiopi, N. A Comprehensive Review of Remediation Strategies for Soil and Groundwater Contaminated with Explosives. Sustainability 2024, 16, 961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Song, B.; Zeng, G.; Gong, J.; Liang, J.; Xu, P.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Cheng, M.; Liu, Y.; et al. Evaluation methods for assessing effectiveness of in situ remediation of soil and sediment contaminated with organic pollutants and heavy metals. Environ. Int. 2017, 105, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Liu, J.; Zhao, L.; Liu, Q.; Li, J.; Qiao, Z.; Sun, P.; Yang, Y. A critical review on soil washing during soil remediation for heavy metals and organic pollutants. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 19, 601–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gong, Y.; Zhao, D.; Wang, Q. An overview of field-scale studies on remediation of soil contaminated with heavy metals and metalloids: Technical progress over the last decade. Water Res. 2018, 147, 440–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lima, A.T.; Hofmann, A.; Reynolds, D.; Ptacek, C.J.; Van Cappellen, P.; Ottosen, L.M.; Pamukcu, S.; Alshawabekh, A.; O’Carroll, D.M.; Riis, C.; et al. Environmental Electrokinetics for a sustainable subsurface. Chemosphere 2017, 181, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Aparicio, J.D.; Raimondo, E.E.; Saez, J.M.; Costa-Gutierrez, S.B.; Álvarez, A.; Benimeli, C.S.; Polti, M.A. The current approach to soil remediation: A review of physicochemical and biological technologies, and the potential of their strategic combination. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sarker, A.; Masud, M.A.A.; Deepo, D.M.; Das, K.; Nandi, R.; Ansary, M.W.R.; Islam, A.R.M.T.; Islam, T. Biological and green remediation of heavy metal contaminated water and soils: A state-of-the-art review. Chemosphere 2023, 332, 138861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Crovella, T.; Paiano, A.; Falciglia, P.P.; Lagioia, G.; Ingrao, C. Wastewater recovery for sustainable agricultural systems in the circular economy—A systematic literature review of Life Cycle Assessments. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 912, 169310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Nwaogu, C.; Minasny, B.; Field, D.J.; Cherubin, M.R. Conceptualizing core aspects of circular economy in soil: A critical review and analysis. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 55, 805–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kurniawan, T.A.; Othman, M.H.D.; Liang, X.; Goh, H.H.; Gikas, P.; Chong, K.-K.; Chew, K.W. Challenges and opportunities for biochar to promote circular economy and carbon neutrality. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 332, 117429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 17 08722 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram adapted from Haddaway et al. [14], illustrating the screening and selection process applied in this review. Author’s own.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram adapted from Haddaway et al. [14], illustrating the screening and selection process applied in this review. Author’s own.
Sustainability 17 08722 g001
Sustainability 17 08722 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of publications by year (n = 32).
Figure 2. Distribution of publications by year (n = 32).
Sustainability 17 08722 g002
Sustainability 17 08722 g003
Figure 3. Productivity by country (n = 32).
Figure 3. Productivity by country (n = 32).
Sustainability 17 08722 g003
Sustainability 17 08722 g004
Figure 4. Main NBS identified in the reviewed articles.
Figure 4. Main NBS identified in the reviewed articles.
Sustainability 17 08722 g004
Sustainability 17 08722 g005
Figure 5. CE strategies addressed in the reviewed NBS articles.
Figure 5. CE strategies addressed in the reviewed NBS articles.
Sustainability 17 08722 g005
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria applied in the review. Author’s own.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria applied in the review. Author’s own.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Peer-reviewed journal articlesReview articles, book chapters, conference papers, editorials
Case studies explicitly describing NBSStudies without case study application
Explicit reference to CE strategiesStudies not addressing CE or not linked to sustainability pillars
Published in EnglishArticles in other languages
Open access availability (ensuring accessibility for readers)Restricted access or paywalled articles
Table 2. Summary of information from the selected articles in the review.
Table 2. Summary of information from the selected articles in the review.
SourceCountryNBSApplicationEC StrategyBenefits or Findings
[16]GreeceBiochar and compost derived from organic waste.Improvement of soil quality and fertility.Recycle
Redesign		Improvement of agricultural soil.
Potential increase in crop yields.
[17]GreeceRainwater harvesting and management.Rainwater harvesting and storage.
Water reuse		Reduce ReuseReducing the risk of flooding.
Improved water availability in regions experiencing water stress.
[18]IndiaGreen solvents, bioleaching, and biosorption.Use of by-products as secondary resources.Redesign ReduceReducing the environmental impact of conventional mining.
[19]FinlandGreen infrastructure.Promoting cities that are resilient to environmental risks.Redesign Reduce ReuseImproving urban resilience to climate change.
[20]ThailandImproved forest management
(IFM).
Afforestation (with fast-growing, slow-growing species, and bamboo).
Application of biochar.		Carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change.
Reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions.		Redesign ReduceContribution to achieving net zero emissions.
Increase in soil carbon stocks and biomass.
[21]LuxembourgReuse of excavated soil as substrate.Development of green spaces and urban recreational areas.Readapt ReusePromotion of circular models in the construction sector.
[22]GreeceCircular urban agriculture that integrates rainwater harvesting, precision irrigation, and composting.Sustainable food production in urban areas.
Reduction in resource consumption (water, energy).		Redesign RecycleReduction in water and energy consumption.
Promoting a circular culture in urban communities.
[23]ItalyGreen infrastructure through urban forestry on degraded industrial land.Ecological restoration of post-industrial soils.
Implementation of vegetation cover in degraded urban areas.		Reduce RedesignPromoting urban vegetation and environmental quality in post-industrial areas.
[24]SwedenSoft soil remediation (ORM–Organism-Based Risk Management).Restoration and recycling contaminated land and soil.RecycleIncrease in the market value of urban sites and environments.
[25]ColombiaBioremediation through composting.Reduction of mercury bioavailability in contaminated biomass.Recycle ReduceRestoration of ecosystem services and local environmental improvement.
[26]MexicoRain gardens, biofilters, and green walls for the treatment of clear gray water (AGCL).Removal of contaminants (turbidity, ammoniacal nitrogen, phosphates, chemical oxygen demand) from wastewater.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Significant improvement in the quality of treated water.
[27]BrazilVertical Flow Artificial Wetland (VF-AC).Wastewater treatment to remove organic matter, turbidity, and toxicity.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		High efficiency in contaminant removal:
COD: up to 95%, Turbidity: 99% and UV254 Absorbance: 96%.
[28]SpainVertical Flow Constructed Wetlands (VFCW).
Free-surface constructed wetlands (FWSCW).		Urban wastewater treatment.
Production of reclaimed water.		Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Increase in biodiversity.
High reduction in pollutants.
[29]BrazilConstructed wetlands.Generation of reclaimed water for non-potable uses (domestic and agricultural).Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Compliance with discharge standards for most systems.
Feasibility of non-potable urban uses.
[30]ItalyGreen infrastructure.Sustainable redevelopment of an abandoned shopping left.Reduce RedesignImproved accessibility, social inclusion, and service provision.
[31]ItalyHorizontal underground treatment wetlands (HTR).Secondary treatment of wastewater using natural processes.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Effective integration of bioenergy production into wastewater treatment systems.
[32]PortugalConstructed wetland (CW) built in educational activity.Environmental education; demonstration of water treatment.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Improvement of ocean culture.
Environmental awareness about pollution and sustainability.
Effective and replicable teaching tool.
[33]BrazilDuckweed (Lemna minor) for phytoremediationEffluent treatment in small fish farms; biomass production.Reduce RedesignReduction in the Trophic State Index (TSI).
Production of co-products (nutraceuticals, animal feed).
High nutritional quality of biomass.
[34]AustraliaGreen infrastructure, NBS, circular urban planning.Urban transition towards net-zero emission districts.Reduce RedesignPromotion of inclusive solutions tailored to the territory.
[35]SwedenUrban green infrastructure, urban agriculture.Sustainable urban planning and landscape conservation.Reduce RedesignGreater biodiversity, climate resilience, food security, and reduction in environmental footprint.
[36]BrazilWetlands constructed with plants (Canna x generalis)Decentralized wastewater treatment.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		High contaminant removal efficiency, low maintenance, scalability.
[37]IndiaConstructed Wetlands (CW).Wastewater treatment.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Waste utilization, replacement of synthetic fibers, green economy.
[38]PolandVertical flow wetlands (VFWs).Urban wastewater treatment.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Cost reduction, economic and environmental benefits, less pollution.
[39]United KingdomConstructed wetlands (CW) with recycled media.Produced water (PW) treatment in oil and gas.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Removal of contaminants, reuse of effluent, reduction in environmental risks.
[40]BrazilUrban Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI).Sustainable urban management.Reduce RedesignWater and food security, biodiversity, urban health, support for Sustainable Development Goals.
[41]IrelandGreen and blue infrastructure, cultural and built heritage.Improvement of ecosystem services and urban quality.Reduce RedesignCommunity well-being, urban sustainability, heritage integration.
[42]United KingdomPhytoremediation with wild macrophytes.Optimization of phytoextraction for water quality.Reuse RecycleImproving water quality, nutrient recovery, circular management.
[43]SpainNature-based solutions and reuse technologies.Water reuse, improved biodiversity, and water quality.ReuseSocial habitability, waste reduction, improvement of urban ecosystems.
[44]ItalyUrban life laboratories, aquaponics, green roofs.Regeneration of industrial districts with NBS.ReduceSocial innovation, efficient use of resources, multisectoral collaboration.
[45]SloveniaHigh-rate algae ponds
(HRAP)		Wastewater treatment and biomass recovery.Reuse
Recycle		Efficient removal of nutrients and emerging contaminants, circular economy.
[46]ChileWater infrastructure based on NBS.Training in technical skills in the design and management of water NBSs.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Capacity building, integration of CE into vocational training.
[47]GreeceConstructed wetlands as green technology.Wastewater treatment, flood control, habitat creation.Redesign Reuse
Recycle		Pollution reduction, biodiversity improvement, sustainable urban design.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramírez-Escamilla, H.G.; Martínez-Rodríguez, M.C.; Domínguez-Solís, D.; Cervantes-Nájera, A.L.; Campos-Villegas, L.E. Identifying Circularity in Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8722. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198722

AMA Style

Ramírez-Escamilla HG, Martínez-Rodríguez MC, Domínguez-Solís D, Cervantes-Nájera AL, Campos-Villegas LE. Identifying Circularity in Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(19):8722. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198722

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramírez-Escamilla, Héctor Guadalupe, María Concepción Martínez-Rodríguez, Diego Domínguez-Solís, Ana Laura Cervantes-Nájera, and Lorena Elizabeth Campos-Villegas. 2025. "Identifying Circularity in Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Review" Sustainability 17, no. 19: 8722. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198722

APA Style

Ramírez-Escamilla, H. G., Martínez-Rodríguez, M. C., Domínguez-Solís, D., Cervantes-Nájera, A. L., & Campos-Villegas, L. E. (2025). Identifying Circularity in Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 17(19), 8722. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198722

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop