Circular Transitions in Island Regions: Overcoming Waste Management Challenges Through Community-Driven Solutions

Abstract

Island ecosystems, are characterized by isolation, limited land, and tourism-driven economies, face persistent waste management challenges. Spatial constraints and inadequate infrastructure often limit the development of waste recovery and recycling systems, leading to practices such as open dumping or burning that pose serious environmental and health risks. This paper examines how circular economy (CE) principles, reduce, reuse, recycle, can transform waste into a resource and enhance local resilience. A refined definition of “small islands” is introduced, combining UN criteria with a tourism-intensity filter to capture the strong link between visitor flows and solid waste generation. Barriers to CE adoption are classified into institutional, technical, geographical, financial, and social dimensions, and connected to enabling practices in four thematic areas: multi-stakeholder partnerships, recycling and composting innovations, policy and regulatory tools, and community engagement. Comparative case studies from Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Pacific reveal that integrated approaches are more durable than isolated efforts. Successful initiatives blend technology with governance, education, financial mechanisms, and community participation. The analysis highlights that no single model fits all islands; strategies must be locally adapted to be effective and transferable. Overall, the study shows that circular transitions are both feasible and necessary, offering environmental gains, economic value, and alignment with the EU Green Deal and global sustainability goals.

1. Introduction: The Waste Challenge in Island Environments

Sustainability in island areas constitutes one of the greatest contemporary challenges due to the unique characteristics of these geographical systems. Challenges like power supply and stability of the power grid, water supply and availability, and fuel availability are only a subgroup of the ones faced permanently by islandic stakeholders. Waste management is an additional challenge of paramount importance from the environmental perspective [1,2]. Geographical isolation, limited space for infrastructure development, sensitive ecosystems, and a significant seasonal increase in population due to tourism make waste management particularly difficult and require tailored solutions. These conditions increase the volume of waste produced, while their management is constrained by a lack of funding and technical capabilities [3]. The absence of organized waste collection and processing infrastructure in island areas often leads to practices such as illegal dumping, open burning, and the use of landfills, which have serious environmental impacts, as in the example of the Cyclades and the Dodecanese [4]. Additionally, the lack of accurate data on the volume and composition of waste complicates the development of effective management strategies [2].

The adoption of circular economy (CE) principles can help address the systemic sustainability challenges of island regions by reducing waste generation, conserving natural resources, and lowering carbon dioxide emissions [5]. Through the 3R strategies—reduce, reuse, recycle—CE alleviates pressure on limited landfill space, mitigates pollution in fragile ecosystems, and lessens dependence on external fuel and raw material supplies [6,7]. By fostering renewable energy use, resource efficiency, and recycling-based employment, CE enhances self-sufficiency and resilience, offering tailored solutions to the unique constraints of insular environments [8,9,10].

Various studies highlight barriers and/or best practices for implementing CE in small islands. However, these studies differ on several grounds, the first being how the term small island is defined. Some works, such as [2,11,12], either use the grouping of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), describe islands through qualitative traits (remoteness, constrained resource flows, diseconomies of scale), or employ the concept of islandness to frame factors such as boundedness, smallness, isolation, and spatial fragmentation. In all these cases, however, no numerical definition is provided. Other studies, such as [13], define small islands as those with populations of up to 50,000 regardless of their physical size, while [14] adopts the more common population threshold of 1.5 million. In some cases, islands are described in terms of contextual characteristics—such as limited land availability [15]. For example, in [16], the island of Tidung is referred to as “small,” but no explicit threshold is given; instead, the classification is contextual. Similarly, in [17], the framing of “small island” is linked to practical conditions (tourism pressure, limited infrastructure). While numerical data are provided (e.g., 70,000 inhabitants, rising to 100,000 during tourist periods, and a total area of about 242 km²), no generalizable numeric definition is proposed beyond the specific case. Finally, studies such as [3,18,19], and [20] treat their research sites as island contexts, often tourism-driven and/or capacity-limited, but none establishes a clear numeric definition of small island.

Another differentiating factor across the literature is the range of barriers emphasized. For instance, Ref. [21] highlights barriers such as limited land availability, high transport costs, and vulnerability to climate events, while [2] identifies four main themes: limited capacity in waste management and absorption, reliance on end-of-pipe solutions, the social dimension of waste, and socioeconomic drivers of waste generation. Similarly, [12] categorizes barriers and enablers into four broad domains—economic, technical, social, and institutional. Case-specific works such as [3] on Arjasa (Indonesia), [15] on Gili Trawangan (Indonesia), and [22] on Langkawi (Malaysia) further illustrate how inadequate infrastructure, financing, and governance hinder sustainable waste management at the local scale.

Alongside barrier-focused studies, a second line of research has promoted island case studies as living laboratories for circular solutions. However, these often remain disconnected from the barrier analysis, treating CE as if it were separate from the very challenges it is meant to address. For example, [17] shows that with stakeholder engagement, even a small island can “close the loop” on specific waste streams by leveraging tourism revenues and awareness as drivers for recycling initiatives. Likewise, [23] examines nine African islands, documenting both emerging CE initiatives and persisting barriers, while [12] uses the Orkney Islands as a case study to explore how insular characteristics simultaneously impede and enable CE transitions in tourism and waste.

The main goal of this paper is to examine how CE principles can provide effective and context-specific solutions to the persistent waste management challenges faced by island regions. Building on both theoretical insights and practical case studies, the paper highlights how CE can transform waste into a resource, reduce environmental impacts, and enhance social and economic resilience in insular contexts.

This paper builds on the dual tradition of identifying barriers and showcasing case studies but advances it in several key ways. First, it introduces an operational definition of “small islands” by combining UN criteria (population under 1.5 million, territory smaller than 5000 km², political sovereignty/autonomy recognized) with a tourism-intensity filter, thereby directly linking circularity debates to tourism-driven waste generation, which remains underexplored, while also presenting corresponding examples (Table 1). Second, it undertakes a systematic review and categorization of barriers, ensuring that all types of constraints are considered. These barriers are then linked to targeted CE actions and enabling practices (multi-stakeholder partnerships, technological innovations, policy tools, and community engagement), producing a comparative framework (Table 2 and Table 3) that connects challenges with solution pathways across four categories: multi-stakeholder partnerships, recycling/composting innovations, policy/regulatory tools, and community engagement. Third, the paper contributes a quantitative cross-island dataset (Table 1), connecting tourist arrivals, visitor-to-resident ratios, and municipal solid waste generation—moving beyond single-case studies that dominate the literature and providing proof regarding the connection of tourism and increased solid waste generation. Fourth, it situates findings within the post-2019 policy context (EU Green Deal [24], EU Circular Economy Action Plan [25]), aligning the analysis with contemporary sustainability priorities. Finally, by synthesizing recent case studies from multiple regions (Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Caribbean, Pacific), it identifies enabling factors that transcend local contexts, offering a comparative perspective rarely found in existing island CE research.

According to the above, the paper aims to answer the following research questions: How can specific barriers faced by small, tourism-driven islands be systematically identified? Which types of CE initiatives are most effective in overcoming these barriers in practice? How can cross-regional case studies comprise transferable lessons and knowledge for policymakers, municipalities and communities? By answering these questions, this paper offers researchers an analytical framework for understanding CE transitions into small islands, while for policymakers, municipalities and local stakeholders it offers an evidence-based roadmap on linking barriers with actionable solutions, ensuring the respective geographical context, the theoretical background and the social feasibility. Overall, the findings of this paper can be used as a decision support tool that can assist in the design of tailored strategies that can endorse both the local context and the global goals on sustainability. This roadmap can provide municipalities and local stakeholders guidance for the tailored adaptation of successful initiatives in the respective local contexts, towards the implementation of scalable and systemic CE transitions.

Apart from the Introductory section, the second section aims in understanding the main parameters of the problem and is therefore divided into four subsections that: (i) examine the impact of tourism on waste management in insular areas under conditions of isolation, limited infrastructure, and seasonal population pressure; (ii) present the limitations posed by geographical constraints, inadequate infrastructure, and financial parameters; (iii) outline the social and governmental challenges commonly encountered on the path towards circularity; and (iv) review traditional waste management methodologies and their environmental impacts. The third section presents the methodological framework followed in this paper, while the fourth section introduces the CE concept, its framework as applied to island areas, and the barriers and enablers to its implementation. The fifth section presents case studies and potential developments, categorized into four thematic areas: multi-stakeholder partnerships; recycling, repurposing, and composting innovations; policy and regulatory tools; and community engagement and education. The sixth section synthesizes lessons learned, connecting the case studies with the addressed challenges while highlighting common enablers and barriers, and distinguishing what has worked well or less effectively across the case studies. Finally, the conclusions section discusses the feasibility of achieving circularity in islands, assesses their policy relevance, situates the findings within the broader framework of EU sustainability priorities, describes the limitations of this study and sets the tone for the necessary future steps.

2. Understanding the Problem

This section’s main aim is to provide the necessary background on the specific challenges that hinder circular transitions in the context of islands. Its role is to present and outline the related parameters (tourism peaks, infrastructural constraints and institutional and social barriers, which inform the comparative analysis presented in the following sections.

2.1. The Impact of Tourism on Waste Management

The increased tourist activity in island ecosystems (e.g., Mediterranean islands), has highlighted the need for waste management as a top priority. Tourism is the main economic sector for many island areas, but the seasonal increase in visitors leads to extreme waste production that the limited infrastructure cannot manage. In the South Aegean area (comprising both the Cyclades and the Dodecanese), the population is 328,000 [21], while at the same time attracting more than six million visitors annually [26], approximately 18 times its resident population. As regards the waste on islands in the South Aegean, the example of Andros and Milos is characteristic of it. Andros has a population of 9221 people (2011 census) [27], and a MSW generation of 6805 tn/year [28], while Milos has a population of 4977 residents [28] and a MSW generation of 2924 tn/year [28]. According to [4], over 90% of the waste of Andros and Milos ends up in illegal landfills or temporary storage systems, such as packaging. This creates an ever-growing environmental and health problem.

The absence of recycling and composting units further exacerbates the situation, with most waste ending up in uncontrolled landfills. The burning of waste to reduce its volume leads to the release of toxic substances, burdening the health of residents and the air quality. In this context, islands with high tourist demand, such as Santorini and Mykonos, face more severe problems due to limited geographical space and increased waste production during the tourist season [2,4]. Table 1 below presents numerical data on the population and MSW generation for the islands of Mykonos and Santorini. As Greece does not have any incineration facilities in the country and does not export waste for incineration [29], both Mykonos and Santorini are among the islands that are burying waste in illegal landfills [4].

Additionally, tourism is characterized by intense seasonality, leading to an explosive increase in waste production during the summer months. This imbalance makes it difficult to develop permanent and efficient management solutions. Studies have shown that tourists produce nearly twice the amount of waste per person compared to permanent residents [11,15].

In the South American islands, a similar situation can be observed, as in the Galápagos Islands (Ecuador) tourism represents the principal economic sector and significantly contributes to municipal solid waste generation. The quick increase in visitor numbers has raised the pressure on the islands’ limited waste management infrastructure, leading to challenges like those faced by other tourism-driven islands. To address these issues, community-led initiatives introduced mechanical composting systems, recycling programs, and educational campaigns aimed at reducing waste and preventing marine pollution [30]. On Santa Cruz Island, these efforts resulted in a 260% increase in recycling, a 35% reduction in per capita waste generation, and a 400% improvement in composting efficiency [31].

The limited geographical area and isolation of the islands create further obstacles to waste collection. On islands like Andros, Tinos, Milos and Leros, (islands in the North and South Aegean) the lack of landfills and organized recycling points has led to temporary solutions, such as compressing and storing waste in bales [4]. However, these solutions are often accompanied by environmental and health issues, such as water pollution and the leakage of toxic substances from the waste bales or compressed waste.

At the same time, the transportation of waste to mainland Greece or other areas requires significant financial and energy resources, which are not always available. According to [2], the difficulties are due to the high transportation costs, lack of suitable infrastructure, and bureaucracy.

The case of Pari Island in Indonesia is quite similar, as tourists are responsible for a significant portion of the 40,000 tons of waste that accumulate each year, with a large part of it ending up in the seas due to inadequate management [18]. Likewise, in Nosy Be, Madagascar, 95% of waste is disposed of uncontrollably, resulting in coastal and marine life pollution [17]. In these areas, the lack of appropriate infrastructure and resources further complicates waste management. Geographical isolation and the high cost of transporting waste to mainland areas are additional constraints [19]. Table 1 shows a list of small islands around the world and their data regarding annual tourist arrivals and solid waste production. It must be noted that in this study, the term “small island” refers to the definition given by the UN: population of less than 1.5 million inhabitants, political sovereignty or autonomy recognized by the UN, and an area under 5000 km² [32,33]. Apart from these criteria, the islands were also chosen due to their high annual tourist arrivals (excluding cruise tourists and domestic tourists). Google Maps was used to identify each islands’ land area (km²), while also, visitors per capita refer to the number of tourists visiting the island, divided by the number of residents (population).

Table 1. Annual tourist arrivals and Municipal Solid Waste—MSW generation.

Island/Country	Land Area (km2)	Population (Latest)	Annual Tourists Arrivals	Visitors Per Capita	MSW Generation
Mallorca/Spain	3640	940,332 (2020) [34]	12,000,000 (2020) [34]	12.76	600,000 t/yr [35]
Phuket/ Thailand	543	418,000 (2024) [36]	13,000,000 (2024) [36]	31.10	365,000 t/yr [36]
Tenerife/Spain	2034	959,189 (2024) [37]	7,237,603 (2024) [38]	7.54	1.86 kg/day per resident [14]
Gran Canaria/Spain	1560	869,984 (2024) [39]	4,587,405 (2024) [38]	5.27	1.86 kg/day per resident [14]
Ibiza/Spain	572	163,000 (2024) [40]	3,275,579 (2024) [41]	19.98	1.295 kg/day per resident [14]
Malta/Malta	316	532,956 (2023) [42]	2,981,476 (2023) [43]	5.59	334,911 t/year [44]
Rhodes/Greece	1401	125,000 (2024) [45]	3,500,000 (2024) [46]	28.00	113,455 (2019) t/year [47]
Lanzarote/Spain	845.9	159,021 (2024) [48]	3,238,044 (2024) [38]	20.36	1.86 kg/day per resident [14]
Santorini/Greece	73	15,457 (2021) [49]	2,200,000 (typically each year) [50]	142.33	21,271 (2019) t/year [47]
Fuerteventura/Spain	1660	126,676 (2024) [51]	2,493,116 (2024) [38]	19.68	1.86 kg/day per resident [14]
Corfu/Greece	585.3	99,000 (last census 2021) [52]	1,691,021 (2022) [53]	17.08	65,000 t/year [54]
Mykonos/Greece	85.5	11,000 (2023) [55]	1,500,000 (2023) [55]	136.36	13,643 (2019) t/year [47]
Maldives/ Maldives	297.8	525.994	1,878,543 (2023) [56]	3.57	860 t/day [57]
Mauritius/Mauritius	2040	1,261,041 (2023) [58]	1,295,410 (2023) [59]	1.02	0.968 kg/day [14]
Aruba/Aruba	193	1,261,041 (2023) [60]	1,421,616 (2024) [61]	13.20	140,000 t/year [62]

Table 1. Annual tourist arrivals and Municipal Solid Waste—MSW generation.

Island/Country	Land Area (km2)	Population (Latest)	Annual Tourists Arrivals	Visitors Per Capita	MSW Generation
Mallorca/Spain	3640	940,332 (2020) [34]	12,000,000 (2020) [34]	12.76	600,000 t/yr [35]
Phuket/ Thailand	543	418,000 (2024) [36]	13,000,000 (2024) [36]	31.10	365,000 t/yr [36]
Tenerife/Spain	2034	959,189 (2024) [37]	7,237,603 (2024) [38]	7.54	1.86 kg/day per resident [14]
Gran Canaria/Spain	1560	869,984 (2024) [39]	4,587,405 (2024) [38]	5.27	1.86 kg/day per resident [14]
Ibiza/Spain	572	163,000 (2024) [40]	3,275,579 (2024) [41]	19.98	1.295 kg/day per resident [14]
Malta/Malta	316	532,956 (2023) [42]	2,981,476 (2023) [43]	5.59	334,911 t/year [44]
Rhodes/Greece	1401	125,000 (2024) [45]	3,500,000 (2024) [46]	28.00	113,455 (2019) t/year [47]
Lanzarote/Spain	845.9	159,021 (2024) [48]	3,238,044 (2024) [38]	20.36	1.86 kg/day per resident [14]
Santorini/Greece	73	15,457 (2021) [49]	2,200,000 (typically each year) [50]	142.33	21,271 (2019) t/year [47]
Fuerteventura/Spain	1660	126,676 (2024) [51]	2,493,116 (2024) [38]	19.68	1.86 kg/day per resident [14]
Corfu/Greece	585.3	99,000 (last census 2021) [52]	1,691,021 (2022) [53]	17.08	65,000 t/year [54]
Mykonos/Greece	85.5	11,000 (2023) [55]	1,500,000 (2023) [55]	136.36	13,643 (2019) t/year [47]
Maldives/ Maldives	297.8	525.994	1,878,543 (2023) [56]	3.57	860 t/day [57]
Mauritius/Mauritius	2040	1,261,041 (2023) [58]	1,295,410 (2023) [59]	1.02	0.968 kg/day [14]
Aruba/Aruba	193	1,261,041 (2023) [60]	1,421,616 (2024) [61]	13.20	140,000 t/year [62]

The contribution of tourism to municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in the aforementioned islands is significant. In Mallorca, for instance, out of the approximately 600,000 tons of MSW produced annually, around 35% (~210,000 tons) is directly attributed to tourist activities [35]. In the case of Phuket, local authorities have reported that the island’s rapid growth, driven by a surge in tourism and construction, has pushed waste volumes beyond pre-COVID-19 levels, with the potential to reach up to 1400 tons of waste per day [63]. A 2020 study in Tenerife [64] found that key tourism activities generate approximately 0.40 kg of mixed waste per tourist per day, while the residential and economic sectors account for about 1.19 kg per resident per day (based on 2019 data). Although detailed data is not available for each of the islands listed in the table, several sources highlight the strong correlation between tourism and the increased MSW generation. For example, in [65], it is reported that tourism growth on Tenerife and Gran Canarias—the two largest islands in the Canary archipelago—has led to increased MSW production, without a parallel expansion of treatment infrastructure. In Croatia, the effect of tourism on solid waste generation has been estimated to be more than 22% greater than that of the resident population, excluding constant influences such as those from local industries [66].

The data presented in Table 1 further highlight these findings, revealing a positive correlation between tourism intensity and MSW generation. Islands with high ratio of visitors per capita, such as Santorini (142.33), Mykonos (136.36) and Phuket (31.10), also report the largest waste outputs per capita, approximately 3.8 kg/resident (Santorini), 3.4 kg/resident (Mykonos) and 2.4 kg/resident (Phuket), when calculated based on the resident population. These values represent higher-bound estimates, as accounting for tourist arrivals would lower the per capita MSW figures (due to the population expansion), without altering the overall trend. On the other hand, larger islands, with moderate tourism intensity, like Tenerife and Malta, exhibit lower waste per capita levels 1.86 kg/resident (Tenerife) and 1.72/resident (Malta). This pattern could suggest that scale and more permanent infrastructure may partially mitigate waste pressures to smaller, touristic islands.

Beyond Europe, similar trends are observed globally. Touristic activities and substandard waste management significantly contribute to environmental degradation [17]. Similar tourism-driven waste patterns are observed globally, for example in Indonesia, the BVI, and Madagascar [16,17,67].

Based on the above, the increase in MSW, in combination with the inability to manage waste, directly affects the quality of life of local residents and the sustainability of the natural environment. Uncontrolled landfills cause aesthetic pollution and odors, while fires at waste sites emit toxic gases that endanger public health [4,15]. However, collaboration between local and international organizations, such as the proposal for the use of the Socio-metabolic Research Framework suggested by [2], can offer sustainable solutions tailored to local needs. By promoting recycling, minimizing waste, and creating cost-effective infrastructure, it is possible to enhance the resilience of island communities to the increasing pressure of tourism.

2.2. Infrastructures and Geographical Limitations

As discussed before, waste management in island areas faces significant constraints due to geographical isolation, limited available land, and a lack of financial and technological resources. Particularly, the limited area of the islands makes it difficult to install modern waste management infrastructure, such as sanitary landfills or recycling units, while the high economic and operational resources required are an additional obstacle to achieving sustainable solutions.

In many cases, the absence of suitable sites leads to practices like burning or uncontrolled dumping of waste, which burden the environment. On Gili Trawangan in Indonesia, for example, waste collection and disposal largely depend on volunteer initiatives and the actions of local organizations like the Gili Eco Trust. Although these efforts have achieved successes, they remain limited in scale and are insufficient to meet the island’s overall needs [15]. The lack of modern infrastructure is also characteristic of other small islands, such as those in the Cyclades and the Dodecanese in Greece. As mentioned earlier, more than 90% of waste on islands like Andros and Milos ends up in landfills or is temporarily baled due to the absence of recycling and composting units [4]. This situation leads to serious environmental impacts, such as soil and water pollution, as well as public health issues.

In the European Union, the Landfill Directive [68] does not prescribe a fixed spatial ratio for landfill installations. Instead, landfill design and capacity are determined on a case-by-case basis, according to site-specific factors such as the quantity and type of waste, geological and hydrogeological conditions, and the containment and environmental-protection measures required under the Directive. These include lining and sealing systems, leachate and gas collection, and closure and after-care provisions, which collectively influence the land area ultimately required for each site. However, Member States may exempt small islands, isolated settlements, or remote sites from certain technical requirements of the Directive if the landfill’s total capacity does not exceed 15,000 tons or its annual intake does not exceed 1000 tons, provided that such exemptions do not endanger human health or the environment [68]. Empirical data from licensed EU facilities provide clearer indication. According to Irish EPA license documentation, the Drehid Waste Management Facility is authorized to accept up to 360,000 tons/y of waste, with a total landfill capacity of 5 million m³ over a 390,000 m² footprint [69]. In contrast, the Kerdiffstown Landfill holds an estimated 3.1 million m³ of historic waste in an area of 310,000 m² [70], while smaller closed sites such as Killycard contain only tens of thousands of cubic meters [71].

Additionally, from the international bibliography, there is no single “per island” number for the space an open-air landfill requires, as it is dependable on daily tonnage, lifetime, buffer zones, etc., studies like [72,73] provide example designs for medium sized landfills (100,000 m² flat area, waste piled to 9 m, receiving 200 tons/day, 7 years lifetime) [73], as well as larger scaled landfills (300,000 m², receiving 300 tons/day, 20 years lifetime) [72].

On the other hand, composting offers a more land-efficient alternative for organic waste. According to [74], open windrow composting requires about 25 m² of pad area per ton of daily waste for a full seven-week cycle (three weeks of active composting plus four weeks of curing), highlighting its relatively small land demand compared with landfill disposal. Additionally, in-vessel composting systems—enclosed, aerated units designed for accelerated processing—require low to moderate space and achieve stabilization within one to two weeks, followed by brief curing in a small static pile [75]. Such compact, modular reactors, often fitting within a single small building, make composting particularly suitable for space-constrained sites such as small islands where available land is limited.

Economic factors are one of the main constraints for effective waste management. Implementing projects, such as the construction of modern facilities, requires significant investments, which are often not available in island areas. Additionally, the small size of local markets makes it difficult to secure sustainable economic returns from activities such as recycling. In many cases, small island communities rely on external funding or subsidies, which are not always guaranteed. In [76] it is noted that insular systems face difficulties in financing capital-intensive infrastructure and frequently rely on foreign aid, while operational expenses can be considerably higher—waste disposal on Oahu, Hawaii, costs about US $91 per ton compared with US $42 per ton on the U.S. mainland, indicating more than double the unit cost for comparable services. Similarly, in [77], the econometric evidence that islandness and remoteness increase average waste-management costs per ton, confirming the influence of scale and distance on efficiency, is presented. Finally, as regards Europe, [65] highlights that insularity and dependence on imported materials raise logistical and operational costs in the Canary Islands.

Within this framework, the case of Arjasa in Indonesia, the lack of community participation and inadequate technological infrastructure results in the inability to implement effective management systems. Local authorities, despite their efforts, struggle to meet the growing needs due to a lack of funding and specialized personnel [3]. Similar problems are found in other areas, such as the Maldives and the Galapagos. There, initiatives to improve waste management, such as those by WWF in the Galapagos, include mechanical composting, which, as mentioned earlier, requires less space, and educational programs to raise residents’ awareness. These actions offer a model for developing similar initiatives in other island areas, such as Greece [30].

The concept of circular economy can form the basis for addressing infrastructure and financial resource constraints in island areas. Implementing circular models includes reducing waste production, enhancing recycling, and reusing materials. For example, the introduction of composting systems and the integration of local businesses into the waste management chain can reduce costs and increase efficiency. At the same time, developing partnerships between public authorities, private companies, and local organizations can offer solutions to address the constraints. In this context, the example of the Gili Eco Trust in Gili Trawangan demonstrates the importance of multilateral partnerships for achieving sustainable waste management [15].

In the Greek context, the development of integrated strategies for waste management in island areas is required, which will include the creation of small, flexible waste management units. Additionally, promoting education and public awareness regarding waste reduction and recycling practices can significantly contribute to improving the situation. In summary, waste management in island areas is a multifaceted challenge that requires combined actions to address geographical, infrastructural, and economic constraints. Through the integration of the circular economy and the creation of partnerships, island communities can achieve sustainable solutions that protect the environment and improve the quality of life for residents.

2.3. Social Parameters and Governmental Challenges

An additional main problem in waste management is the lack of substantial cooperation between governing bodies and local communities. Failure to integrate communities into decision-making and policy implementation often leads to a lack of interest and participation from residents. As highlighted in the study by [3], the lack of information and educational programs on the importance of recycling and sustainable waste management is a critical obstacle. Without proper education, residents may not understand the importance of recycling or be willing to adopt sustainable practices.

Poor management by local authorities is another serious challenge. In many islands, governance is characterized by a lack of transparency and accountability, which undermines community trust. The study by [15] points out that inadequate resource management and lack of transparency in decision-making hinder the effective implementation of waste management programs. Additionally, the absence of regulatory frameworks and sufficient oversight allows the continuation of practices that burden the environment.

Social perceptions and resistance to change are also significant factors. Many communities view recycling and waste management as the government’s responsibility, overlooking their own contribution to the process. Additionally, changes to established practices often provoke resistance, especially when these changes require additional effort or cost. The authors in [3] emphasize that community participation requires continuous communication and education to overcome these obstacles.

Successful waste management initiatives highlight the importance of partnerships between various stakeholders. The example of Gili Trawangan in Indonesia, where local communities collaborated with non-governmental organizations, shows that partnerships can overcome challenges related to poor governance. Through community participation and enhanced transparency, the area significantly improved its waste management [15].

2.4. Traditional Waste Management Methodologies & Environmental Impact

In the island regions conventional waste management methods, e.g., uncontrolled landfilling and dumping, disposal in the environment and incineration are practices often used. These methods have serious environmental consequences, burden the ecosystem as well as the quality of life of the communities involved [2,5]. About 3–4% of anthropogenic GHG emissions in the world are generated by waste disposal [20].

Landfilling is the act of ultimate disposal of waste materials and is the least desired option according to the waste management hierarchy [11]. According to research, islands tend to rely on degraded or poorly sited landfills and dumpsites as the primary means of disposal of waste [2]. In some cases, dumpsites were traditionally sited on mangroves or coastal swamps, as this land was not perceived as ‘valuable’ [2,76]. Not-in-my-backyard (NIMBYism) further exacerbates sitting issues for landfills [2,76,78]. In many cases, waste collects in open landfills, increasing the risk of emissions of toxic gases, such as methane. Municipal solid waste contributes roughly 12 percent of global anthropogenic methane emissions [79], while improving overall solid waste management can not only cut methane, but also other air, water, and soil contaminants detrimental to human health and the environment [79]. Based on [79] examples of such pollutants would be carbon dioxide (CO₂) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel-fueled collection vehicles, landfill fires and open dumping, as well as avoiding leachate contamination of groundwater and soil by heavy metals and organic compounds. A characteristic example is the Kampung Belanga Pecah landfill, in Langkawi Island, which operates as a mere open dump, that lacks a proper lining system and leachate treatment facility, whereby it has been in operation since 1985, with an estimated daily solid waste input of 80 tons [14,22]. The landfill is not built to be sanitary, and leachate run-off occurs frequently, particularly during the monsoon season [14,22]. It must be mentioned that the generation of leachates from landfills increases the risk of groundwater contamination [11], therefore threatening the environment and human health. This situation is typical of small islands that do not have wastewater treatment systems.

As regards dumping, the use of open dumps or landfills has become common practice in many countries. Waste is dumped directly into an open area in dumps [14]. Contaminants are contained in landfills, which require sanitation through the use of liners, covers, and compression techniques [14]. These locations can be foul-smelling and home to disease-carrying mosquitoes and rodents [14]. Another issue that arises is the uncontrolled dumping of waste on coasts and marine areas which results in environmental degradation. Plastic waste, which often ends up in the sea, breaks down into microplastics, which enter the food chain and affect the health of marine organisms and humans. In areas such as the Galapagos, initiatives involving mechanical composting and waste collection programs have been developed to avoid littering, offering an example to follow [5,30]. Another difficult aspect for island settings is that even dumps and landfills need a lot of space, which is usually rare [14,80].

As noted in [11], incineration without proper emission control is unsuitable for managing solid waste, particularly due to the release of harmful substances. Furthermore, waste incineration is a major source of air pollution, affecting the quality of soil and water through contaminated rainfall that eventually reaches terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems [81]. These impacts pose serious risks not only to the environment but also to public health. Also, as mentioned in Flouri [5] baling waste is a common practice due to the absence of modern processing facilities, especially in small islands such as the Cyclades and the Dodecanese [4]. This method increases the risk of fire and contributes to air pollution through the release of toxic smoke. Simultaneously, toxic pollutants released into the air, soil, and water pose serious threats to both public health and the ecosystem. In the Maldives, for instance, waste pollution has caused significant damage to coral reefs, adversely impacting tourism and the maritime economy [57].

The challenges presented above give a picture of the context of the following methodological framework, which explains how these issues were systematically analyzed and linked to circular economy solutions across island case studies.

3. Methodological Framework

This study employed a multi-step methodological approach designed to capture both the barriers to circular economy (CE) implementation in small islands and the practical solutions emerging from recent case studies (Figure 1). At this point, it has to be mentioned that even though Figure 1 is visually inspired by the PRISMA structure, it is used here only to depict the series of steps undertaken for the implementation of a non-medical, environmental sustainability review. The main purpose of the Figure is to present the methodological steps followed in a transparent way, rather than to replicate the PRISMA protocol.

First, a systematic literature review of more than 100 academic and policy sources was conducted, focusing on CE-related barriers and best practices in island contexts. This literature review covered peer-reviewed academic and institutional sources, indexed in Scopus and Google Scholar, complemented by additional literature (EU reports, UN publications, NGO’s reports), in order to denote practical and applied initiatives. The search keywords combined terms such as “circular economy” AND “islands” AND (“waste management” OR “tourism” OR “small island”) and “circular transitions” AND (“case study” OR “community” OR “policy”).

Figure 1. Systematic review process for identifying and selecting relevant studies.

Figure 1. Systematic review process for identifying and selecting relevant studies.

Particular attention was paid to how the term small island has been defined across the literature, since existing studies vary widely—from qualitative framings of islandness (remoteness, boundedness, diseconomies of scale) to population-based thresholds. To ensure relevance to contemporary sustainability debates from the total number of studies, only those published after 1999 were retained, in order to align with the period of the EU Circular Economy policy framework and the global sustainability agenda (including the EU Green Deal [24] and the EU Circular Economy Action Plan [25].

The initial screening of more than 150 records (>150) excluded documents that (i) did not address circular economy principles, (ii) referred exclusively to continental contexts, and (iii) were published prior to 1999. After relevance and quality screening, approximately 70 studies were selected for detailed analysis and cross-comparison.

Based on the review, the barriers to CE adoption in islands were systematically categorized into a holistic framework encompassing technological, financial, social, geographical, and institutional dimensions. This classification aimed to capture the full range of real-life constraints faced by insular communities, moving beyond single-issue analyses.

For the CE activities case study selection, the study adopted the UN definition of small islands (population under 1.5 million inhabitants, political sovereignty or autonomy recognized by the UN, and total area under 5000 km²). Only islands meeting these criteria were included in this study. To strengthen the analysis, this definition was combined with a tourism-intensity criterion, acknowledging the established link between seasonal tourist flows and municipal solid waste generation. The final set of case studies was selected to ensure, on one hand, geographical coverage, and on the other hand, contextual diversity in terms of governance, technologies and CE level of integration. Such an approach allows cross-regional comparisons, sustaining consistency, while avoiding subjectivity.

Finally, a comparative analysis was undertaken to map the connections between the identified barriers and the real-world solutions documented in the case studies. This approach allowed for the construction of a barrier–solution framework (Table 2 and Table 3), linking structural challenges with specific CE actions such as stakeholder partnerships, technological innovations, policy instruments, and community engagement strategies.

This comparative analysis was implemented through the careful examination of reviewed studies, case examples and best practices, in order to spot the main barriers and their enabling circular practices. These outcomes were then organized under the institutional, technical, geographic, financial, and social dimensions of Table 2, to ensure consistency. Repeated or overlapping patterns between barriers and solutions were then studied to shape the four thematic areas of circular practices: multi-stakeholder partnerships, recycling and composting innovations, policy and regulatory tools, and community engagement. The connections presented in Figure 2 and Table 4 were established by aligning the types of initiatives that tackled each barrier category across the reviewed cases. This process led to a clear and transparent way to connect empirical observations to the conceptual framework, while retaining flexibility appropriate to qualitative synthesis.

4. Circular Economy in Islands: Concepts and Barriers

A circular economy (CE) is an ecosystem in which components, products, and by-products retain most of their value throughout their lifecycle. The core principles of this system—reduce, reuse, and recycle—stand in contrast to the traditional linear economy model of produce, use, and dispose, and serve as the basis for action-oriented solutions [6]. The CE plays a key role in minimizing environmental impacts by significantly reducing waste generation, conserving natural resources, and lowering carbon dioxide emissions [5]. According to [7], the implementation of CE principles can alleviate environmental burdens through increased recycling and the adoption of renewable energy sources. Moreover, reducing reliance on virgin raw materials and leveraging both biological and technical production cycles helps to preserve biodiversity and prevent ecosystem degradation. The “cradle-to-cradle” philosophy—designing products from birth to rebirth—further underscores the potential of materials to be treated as renewable resources, resulting in more efficient and less polluting production processes [6].

Beyond environmental benefits, the CE also acts as a catalyst for economic growth by fostering the emergence of new markets and business models, such as Product-as-a-Service (PaaS), where consumers pay for access to products rather than owning them [8]. Its adoption enhances resource efficiency and reduces production costs. As noted in [82], investments in CE stimulate innovation and technological development, boosting competitiveness and contributing to long-term economic resilience. Furthermore, transitioning from a linear to a circular model reduces exposure to raw material price volatility and lowers dependency on external suppliers. The use of recycled materials and energy recovery systems also strengthens the sustainability of supply chains, as demonstrated in [83].

Finally, the CE contributes to advancing social equity by generating employment in sectors like recycling, waste management, and renewable energy [9]. Sustainable practices strengthen local communities, improve quality of life, and help reduce social disparities. Moreover, CE promotes citizen engagement, encouraging environmental awareness and more responsible consumption habits [5]. As emphasized in [6], initiatives such as recycling education and active community involvement in waste management foster social cohesion and a heightened sense of individual responsibility for sustainability.

Circular economy (CE) interventions can significantly reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal on islands by prioritizing waste prevention and implementing the 3R strategies—reduce, reuse, recycle. This reduction not only alleviates chronic pressure on limited landfill space but also helps mitigate pollution in fragile island ecosystems. According to [10], CE offers a promising approach to addressing the growing challenge of e-waste on islands. Its adoption can diversify island economies, create new employment opportunities, improve human and ecosystem health, and enhance both resource security and self-sufficiency.

In addition to these practical benefits, CE can provide a strategic response to systemic waste management issues. As noted in [2], current research often conceptualizes island waste as a ‘tame’ problem—something that can be rationalized and solved using technical or economic parameters. However, such an approach tends to overlook the underlying causes of waste-related challenges, such as the structural dependence of island economies on consumption-driven development. Moreover, there is often insufficient attention paid to the unique characteristics of the island context when developing sustainable development strategies [2]. Further supporting this perspective, [23] highlights that circularity can address the issue of waste—particularly plastic waste—through a holistic lens, from reducing consumption to enhancing recycling efforts. Adopting a CE framework provides a comprehensive and robust foundation for tackling plastic pollution across the entire waste lifecycle.

Ultimately, to translate the theoretical promise of CE in island waste management into practical outcomes, a fundamental shift is required in how island communities handle materials. Moving from linear disposal systems to regenerative material cycles is essential for fostering long-term environmental resilience and economic sustainability. This shift, especially in island ecosystems, means facing several inherent challenges and limitations. As mentioned in previous sections, islands are geographically bounded systems with severe land and resource constraints, which directly impact waste management capacity. Apart from this constraint, studies have shown that major difficulties in applying circularity approaches in island areas include lack of financial incentives, lack of awareness, need for institutional support and policies and regulations.

In particular, island regions often encounter distinctive and overlapping barriers when attempting to implement circular economy (CE) initiatives. A major challenge lies in the absence of enabling policy frameworks; many islands lack comprehensive CE strategies or supporting legislation, resulting in fragmented, uncoordinated efforts [23]. This institutional gap is compounded by insufficient technical capacity and a shortage of skilled human resources required to design and implement technically advanced CE activities [23,84]. This deficiency not only undermines the feasibility of specific interventions but also limits the ability of island states to formulate long-term CE strategies [23].

Public awareness is another critical barrier. In many islands, there is a lack of understanding of CE principles both among policymakers and within the general population [23]. While general environmental awareness—especially around plastic pollution and waste—is increasing, this has not yet translated into broad support or behavior change related to CE practices [23]. As highlighted in both [10,23], this awareness gap, combined with limited education and engagement campaigns, significantly hinders CE uptake. Furthermore, the successful deployment of circular practices is constrained by financial barriers, such as high upfront costs and the lack of economies of scale [10,84], as well as institutional barriers, including limited government support and weak inter-sectoral coordination [10,23]. Small market sizes and geographic isolation further undermine economic viability, making it difficult to sustain local circular business models without regional cooperation or external investment [84].

A summary of the most common challenges towards the implementation of CE actions in island regions can be found in Table 2. These challenges fulfill the institutional, technical, geographic, financial, and social dimensions, and can also serve as evaluative criteria for assessing the performance and readiness of island systems to implement circular economy strategies, thereby supporting both academic analysis and policy design.

Table 2. Common challenges towards the implementation of CE actions in island regions.

No	Barriers/Challenge	Description
1.	Lack of integrated circular economy (CE) policy frameworks	Many islands lack overarching policies that promote CE practices; existing policies often remain sectoral and fragmented [23,85]
2.	Insufficient technical and institutional capacity	Insufficient technical know-how, equipment, and trained personnel limits the implementation of CE strategies [23,84].
3.	Limited access to financial resources and investments	Circular economy solutions often require upfront capital; access to funding is limited especially in small island contexts [85]. Initiatives have been supported through innovative financing like blue bonds, but such programs are heavily reliant on external capital [23].
4.	Low public awareness and behavioral inertia	There is limited community understanding of CE principles, recycling, and sustainable consumption, which impedes uptake [85]. In terms of awareness about the CE, further campaigns are needed at all levels of the population, but especially at the production and policy levels [23]. Lack of awareness is one of the major difficulties of implementing the CE approach [10]
5.	Small market size and remoteness	Islands suffer from diseconomies of scale due to their small populations and geographic isolation [23]. Lack of economies of scale is one of the major difficulties of implementing the CE approach [10]
6.	Over-reliance on imports and linear production systems	Heavy dependence on imported goods and fossil-based products undermines localized CE loops [85]. An island’s dependence on imported goods has hindered the development of closed-loop systems, making it difficult to reduce material throughput locally [84].
7.	Inadequate waste management infrastructure	Lack of facilities for recycling, composting, and material recovery means most waste is landfilled or exported [85]
8.	Fragmented governance and weak policy enforcement	Weak inter-agency collaboration, unclear roles, and low policy continuity hinder the systemic implementation of CE approaches [14]. The successful advancement of CE in Réunion, for example, has been largely attributed to the policy influence and technical assistance from mainland France [23].

Table 2. Common challenges towards the implementation of CE actions in island regions.

No	Barriers/Challenge	Description
1.	Lack of integrated circular economy (CE) policy frameworks	Many islands lack overarching policies that promote CE practices; existing policies often remain sectoral and fragmented [23,85]
2.	Insufficient technical and institutional capacity	Insufficient technical know-how, equipment, and trained personnel limits the implementation of CE strategies [23,84].
3.	Limited access to financial resources and investments	Circular economy solutions often require upfront capital; access to funding is limited especially in small island contexts [85]. Initiatives have been supported through innovative financing like blue bonds, but such programs are heavily reliant on external capital [23].
4.	Low public awareness and behavioral inertia	There is limited community understanding of CE principles, recycling, and sustainable consumption, which impedes uptake [85]. In terms of awareness about the CE, further campaigns are needed at all levels of the population, but especially at the production and policy levels [23]. Lack of awareness is one of the major difficulties of implementing the CE approach [10]
5.	Small market size and remoteness	Islands suffer from diseconomies of scale due to their small populations and geographic isolation [23]. Lack of economies of scale is one of the major difficulties of implementing the CE approach [10]
6.	Over-reliance on imports and linear production systems	Heavy dependence on imported goods and fossil-based products undermines localized CE loops [85]. An island’s dependence on imported goods has hindered the development of closed-loop systems, making it difficult to reduce material throughput locally [84].
7.	Inadequate waste management infrastructure	Lack of facilities for recycling, composting, and material recovery means most waste is landfilled or exported [85]
8.	Fragmented governance and weak policy enforcement	Weak inter-agency collaboration, unclear roles, and low policy continuity hinder the systemic implementation of CE approaches [14]. The successful advancement of CE in Réunion, for example, has been largely attributed to the policy influence and technical assistance from mainland France [23].

The persistence of barriers discussed in the above table can be better explained and understood through socio-technical transition theory and institutional perspectives. According to [86] socio-technical regimes—composed of interlinked technologies, infrastructures, and user practices—create strong path dependencies that resist radical change. This helps explain why waste management systems on islands continue to follow linear, resource-based models, even as awareness of sustainability issues grows. This view is further complemented by [87] which argues that transitions cannot be achieved through top-down approaches alone but instead emerge through iterative, multi-level governance processes involving diverse actors (niches, regimes, and external landscapes). When applied to island contexts, this framework suggests that community-driven initiatives can serve as niches where innovative circular solutions may develop. However, such initiatives often struggle to evolve further due to limited governance mechanisms capable of transforming them into strategic, long-term visions.

Moreover, according to [5] another major challenge of the circular economy (CE), that is often overlooked by the literature, lies in accurately measuring its impact in a precise and isolated manner. Many countries lack sufficient data needed to advance a circular economy transition. According to [88], there is a need for better quality data—more robust, complete, and consistent—to track progress, align incentives, and inform policy, in order to assess, prioritize, and monitor circular interventions for greater impact [88]. Additionally, in [89] it was found that the second most important level to focus on is the microenvironmental level that encompasses crucial CE challenge patterns for the tourism industry [89]. That includes the necessity for knowledge on how to effectively transition toward and operate in a CE needs, so that it can be further developed and available within the industry, to tackle lack of proof of solid CE theory, concepts, methods, measurements and role models [89].

Ιn accordance with the above, most available data offer only aggregate estimates rather than assessing the effects of specific activities [5]. For instance, the Circularity Gap Report [90] suggests that a full transition to a circular economy could reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 39% and decrease pressure on virgin materials by 28%. Similarly, [91] highlights that circular economy strategies could reduce GHG emissions by 9.3 billion tons—equivalent to current global emissions from all modes of transport—by keeping materials in use, designing out waste, and regenerating farmland. However, these figures are broad and do not distinguish between individual circular interventions. More targeted studies provide a clearer picture of specific impacts. For example, [92] shows that a 1% increase in municipal waste recycling is associated with a 0.5% reduction in average CO₂ emissions across the EU. Likewise, [93,94] estimates that recycling the 15 most commonly used plastic polymers could reduce plastics-related CO₂ emissions by up to 73% (200 Mt CO₂e). In the case of plastic packaging, [91] further suggests that adopting refillable designs in the beauty, personal care, and home cleaning sectors could achieve an 80–85% reduction in GHG emissions compared to single-use models. Despite these promising projections, the data still largely reflect general outcomes, underscoring the persistent difficulty in isolating the impact of individual CE practices [5].

5. Case Studies and Potential Developments of Circular Practices

Based on the process described in Section 3, the selected island case studies, presented in this section, were studied using the same set of barriers and thematic areas of circular practices, allowing for a consistent and transparent comparison of how different contexts have applied circular economy principles in practice.

Despite the above-mentioned barriers, there are various case studies, theoretical and practical examples in the literature, where either CE has been integrated into waste management, or the theoretical framework of such an integration has been studied, therefore offering sustainable solutions. These case studies have been categorized into four main thematic categories, namely multi-stakeholder partnerships, recycling and composting innovations, policy and regulatory tools, and community engagement and education. The following table (Table 3) depicts the theoretical background of each category.

These four thematic categories encompass all the sectors involved in the promotion and establishment of circularity, technical expertise, institutional and systemic support, as well as social engagement, support and education. Even though they differ in scope, focus, and feasibility they are indeed interconnected into constructing a holistic set of circular practices. Multi-stakeholder partnerships emphasize systematic collaboration, including businesses, governments, and civil society, and making them core ingredients towards larger-scaled structural shifts such as industrial symbiosis. However, these partnerships are often complex to establish and sustain, while they require long-term trust, vision and shared incentives. On the other hand, recycling and composting innovations are technology-driven and operational, offering direct and tangible benefits through resource recovery. Still, without supportive governance and widespread adoption, these innovations have the risk of remaining isolated use case projects rather than becoming transformative practices.

Policy and regulatory tools comprise the supporting environment for both partnerships and innovations, framing CE as an effort towards systemic shift rather than standalone improvements. However, policies alone may not succeed if they do not address behavioral change or lack effective enforcement. This highlights the critical role of community engagement and education, which transform circular practices into a social concern. However, as the Langkawi case illustrates, temporary tourist populations and different levels of local awareness restrain the effectiveness of educational strategies, unless complemented by systemic infrastructure and supportive policies. Thus, while each category provides a diverse entry point into circular economy integration, their effectiveness lies in their complementarity as technological solutions require regulatory support, partnerships need community buy-in, and education must be coupled with tangible systems that enable participation.

Table 3. Circular practices thematic categories.

No	Category	Theoretical Background
1	Multi-stakeholder partnerships	Stakeholder collaboration is a common strategy for advancing sustainability [95]. For instance, industrial symbiosis allows organizations to build networks of partners that facilitate the transition toward a circular economy [96]. Partnerships for sustainability are particularly important in tourism, where stakeholder collaboration is essential for sustainable destination development [97,98].
2	Recycling, Repurposing and Composting innovations	The introduction of technological innovations (e.g., small-scale recycling and recovery systems) can be beneficial, as they allow tourism to be viewed as an opportunity by generating recyclable and exploitable waste fractions [17].
3	Policy and regulatory tools	The circular economy (CE) should be understood as a fundamental systemic change [99,100], rather than a minor adjustment to the status quo, to ensure its impact. However, only about 40% of existing definitions conceptualize CE from a systems perspective [101].
4	Community engagement and education	A community-centered engagement strategy which demonstrates that socioeconomic embeddedness is necessary to achieve the goals of a circular economy [102,103].

Table 3. Circular practices thematic categories.

No	Category	Theoretical Background
1	Multi-stakeholder partnerships	Stakeholder collaboration is a common strategy for advancing sustainability [95]. For instance, industrial symbiosis allows organizations to build networks of partners that facilitate the transition toward a circular economy [96]. Partnerships for sustainability are particularly important in tourism, where stakeholder collaboration is essential for sustainable destination development [97,98].
2	Recycling, Repurposing and Composting innovations	The introduction of technological innovations (e.g., small-scale recycling and recovery systems) can be beneficial, as they allow tourism to be viewed as an opportunity by generating recyclable and exploitable waste fractions [17].
3	Policy and regulatory tools	The circular economy (CE) should be understood as a fundamental systemic change [99,100], rather than a minor adjustment to the status quo, to ensure its impact. However, only about 40% of existing definitions conceptualize CE from a systems perspective [101].
4	Community engagement and education	A community-centered engagement strategy which demonstrates that socioeconomic embeddedness is necessary to achieve the goals of a circular economy [102,103].

Additionally, there is a clear relationship between Table 2 and Table 3, as each thematic category is linked to addressing specific barriers (Figure 2). For example, the first thematic category, Multi-stakeholder partnerships, primarily targets challenges 1, 2, and 8 by helping to overcome policy fragmentation and strengthen institutional capacity through collaboration. The second category, Recycling and composting innovations, addresses challenges 5, 6, and 7, since such innovations fill infrastructure gaps and adapt to the scale limitations of island systems. The third category, Policy and regulatory tools, relates to challenges 1, 3, and 8, as these tools provide the necessary framework to support and sustain CE transitions, including financial enabling mechanisms. Finally, the fourth category, Community engagement and education, contributes to overcoming challenges 4, 5, and 6 by combating behavioral inertia and embedding CE principles within local culture and practice—even among short-stay tourists. It should be noted, however, that each category may also contribute to solving additional challenges not explicitly mentioned here. The main objective of the authors is to highlight how the categorization of case studies aligns with addressing specific challenges, tailored to the unique circumstances of each case, as presented in the following sections. Additionally, it must be noted that a case study might be subject to more than one categorizations, as its activities might be broader. However they have been categorized according to their main/strongest theme.

Figure 2. Links between Circular Practices and Challenges.

Figure 2. Links between Circular Practices and Challenges.

At this point it must be noted that the case studies presented in the following sections were chosen with a focus to the circular economy initiatives in the island regions, published after 2019–2020, to capture the most recent development along with the EU priorities (Green Deal [24], EU Circular Economy Plan [25], etc.). The islands included fell under the UN definition of “small island” referring to territories with a population of less than 1.5 million inhabitants, political sovereignty or autonomy recognized by the UN, and a total area of less than 5000 km² [32,33], while also the high touristic arrivals (excluding cruise and domestic tourists) were also considered, given the established link between tourism seasonality and waste generation pressures. Finally, the case studies offered concrete examples for each of the previously mentioned thematic areas used in this paper, therefore allowing for a comparative analysis across different modes of circularity implementation.

5.1. Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships

According to [104], the very idea of the circular economy assumes a robust model of stakeholder engagement. Without cooperative agreements among stakeholders, the vision of a more environmentally friendly and socially inclusive society cannot be realized. As products and business models are redesigned to minimize waste and increase the reuse of materials, the transition toward a sustainable circular economy necessarily requires collaboration and cooperation across different sectors of society [104]. In this category emphasis is laid on partnerships overcoming limited scale and funding by pooling resources and aligning incentives.

In Gili Trawangan, Indonesia, a partnership between local NGOs, community members, and tourism businesses enabled the development of structured waste collection and recycling practices [5,15]. According to [38], stakeholder involvement proved efficient in raising awareness on waste, among the citizens of Gili Trawangan and in improving education on the impacts of waste and desired solid waste practices. The island has since become a model of success, as its waste management standards surpass the Indonesian average in terms of service level, willingness to pay, and waste-related behaviors and practices [5,14].

Established in 2018, the Moana Taka partnership in the South Pacific islands, demonstrates how collaboration at a supra-island scale can overcome logistical and economic constraints. By enabling the free export of recyclable waste from Pacific Island countries to larger treatment hubs in Asia-Pacific ports [1,2], it has diverted over 680 tons of waste from Pacific Island countries and territories sent to suitable ports in the Asia-Pacific region for treatment and recycling [5,105].

In the Maldives, where over 860 metric tons of waste—mostly plastic—are generated daily, two financed projects have been working with the government to transition from a linear ‘use and dispose’ waste management system to a circular economy through a ‘waste-to-wealth’ approach [5]. This stakeholder collaboration aims to establish a sustainable waste management system, build capacity, and educate young people, thereby contributing to a safer and cleaner Maldives [57]. These activities culminated in the 2025 Maldives National Climate Action Plan Towards Resilience and Low-Carbon Development, which prioritizes the development and operation of three regional waste management systems, the expansion of composting programs, the remediation of the two largest dumpsites, and the establishment of island waste and resource management centers [106].

Another example of a multi-stakeholder partnership is the case of Tilos, Greece, which in 2021, through the Just Go Zero Tilos initiative, officially committed to becoming a Zero Waste Candidate City. Led by Polygreen, the initiative introduced door-to-door separate collection, including organics, achieving by 2022 a 100% diversion of residual waste from landfill and recovery rates of nearly 90%. The landfill was closed and transformed into a Centre for Circular Innovation, where waste is further sorted and processed: biowaste is converted into fertilizer, while other fractions are reused, recycled, or prepared for waste-to-energy conversion. This public–private partnership not only improved local waste management but also strengthened community capacity for the green transition, created jobs, and treated residents as active co-implementers through door-to-door sorting and education programs. As such, the case illustrates how one initiative can belong to more than one thematic category [107].

Finally, the partnership and collaboration of Paros Municipality (a Greek island in the Aegean), the Cyclades Preservation Fund, WWF Greece, the Clean Blue Initiative led by Common Seas, the University of the Aegean, WATT, Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation (HERRCO), led the Clean Blue Paros initiative [108], which aimed to make the island the first plastic-waste-free destination in the Mediterranean. The program piloted creative and practical upstream solutions to radically reduce these problematic plastics which led to the involvement of over 100 hospitality businesses to help measure and reduce or eliminate single-use plastics, interventions such as reusable cup deposit-return schemes, community-led beach litter monitoring, the installation of 17 voting ashtrays, the installation of water filtration systems in schools and donation of reusable metal bottles to students, that would prevent around 783,000 single-use plastic bottles becoming waste every year [109]. Additionally, it must be noted that this case’s achievements were reinforced by strong community engagement and education strategies, which ensured behavioral change and broad ownership of the transition.

5.2. Recycling, Repurposing and Composting Innovations

Given the constraints of limited land, high transport costs, and small market sizes, islands cannot rely on large-scale waste treatment infrastructures typical of continental settings. Instead, they must adapt or develop small-scale, flexible systems that maximize material recovery, reduce landfill dependency, and create localized value loops. Such innovations transform the waste generated by tourism and local consumption into an opportunity for resource recovery [5].

On Nosy Be, pilot projects have been proposed to introduce plastic sorting and recycling systems with the participation of both local and international stakeholders [9,53]. Within this context, the involvement of local communities in waste sorting and recycling is also considered crucial to the success of management programs [9], underscoring the importance of cooperation among multiple stakeholders, including local authorities, businesses, and residents. This example further illustrates that a single case study may fall under more than one thematic category, as also mentioned earlier. The study presents encouraging conditions for circular economy initiatives due to the availability of waste resources, the engagement of stakeholders, and potential market opportunities. However, the findings remain theoretical and emphasize that actual cost assessments and operational challenges must still be validated through small-scale pilot projects [5,17].

In Mauritius, several initiatives highlight how recycling and composting can reduce pressure on landfills: a bottle deposit and reuse scheme, promotion of household composting through distribution of compost bins, and the export of PET bottles for processing, and encouraging communication and exchange between businesses to sell waste from one company as resources to another [5,65,110]. According to [111] the percentage of wastes diverted from landfill is 3% (2021–2022) with a target to reach 15% (2024–2025), and 70% (2030) [5].

In Guadeloupe, the establishment of specialized facilities for tires, plastics, and WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) from Guiana, Martinique, and Guadeloupe, along with the Ecodec recycling center, have enabled the recovery of materials that would otherwise be landfilled or incinerated [85]. By functioning as a regional hub, the island demonstrates how innovative facilities can serve multiple territories, achieving economies of scale in otherwise fragmented island contexts. No recent statistics have been found regarding the amount of waste being diverted from landfills; however, according to [112] in 2012 the Guadeloupe facility processed 15,000 tons of industrial waste, including 3900 tons of tires.

In the Galápagos Islands, 8–10 tons of plastic are removed from beaches each year. Beyond recycling, which faces its own challenges, one option under consideration is converting collected plastics into plastic-enhanced construction materials, while the use of bioplastics is also being explored [113]. In 2023, a new plastics circular economy project was launched to implement prevention measures against local plastic pollution. These include reducing imports, consumption, and leakage, promoting community-driven alternatives to single-use plastics, informing sustainable policies, and supporting efforts to reduce risks to wildlife [114]. These efforts show how innovation can be both a response to local environmental pressures and a driver of sustainable economic activity.

In the Barbados islands, the Sustainable Barbados Recycling Centre (SBRC)—a Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station operating since 2009, processes approximately 1000 to 1300 tons per day of household and institutional waste [115]. After processing at the SBRC Facility, the amount of waste that leaves the Facility for disposal is reduced to approximately 670 tons, of which 300 tons goes to landfill. Organics are turned into mulch and compost, while many materials are reused or exported for recycling purposes, helping preserve valuable land resources [116].

5.3. Policy and Regulatory Tools

While technological solutions and partnerships can be the initiators of change, the establishment of legal frameworks, financial incentives, and application mechanisms ensures that circularity becomes systemic rather than ad hoc. As also mentioned earlier, the CE should be understood as a fundamental systemic change [99,100], rather than a minor adjustment to the status quo, to ensure its impact.

Within this framework, Zlarin became the first Croatian island to ban disposable plastics, a decision initiated by the Association “La Revolution Albatros” with broad community support [5]. The ban created a binding framework for reducing plastic use, showing how small-scale regulations such as banning disposable plastics, buying home composters, reduction in household waste by as much as 60%, going shopping with one’s own bag and turning organic waste into garden food [117], can have significant environmental impact while also positioning the island as a model of sustainable tourism.

The Canary Islands have adopted innovative collection models, such as door-to-door systems, which have achieved recycling rates significantly higher than conventional container-based approaches (over 27% compared with 8.5%) [5]. These policy-driven tailored systems depict how regulatory alternatives in collection design can substantially influence citizen participation and waste diversion.

The Beverage Container Deposit Fee Program in Palau requires a deposit on beverage containers, 94% of which are returned for reprocessing [85]. This program resulted in over 34 million plastic, aluminum, and other metal containers—or nearly 450,000 kg of material—were exported for recycling between April 2011 and September 2013 [5,85]. This case underlines the importance of financial incentives in shaping recycling behavior and achieving high recovery rates even in small and isolated markets.

5.4. Community Engagement and Education

According to [118], education plays a pivotal role in shaping knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors that support the CE. As such, it represents a central leverage point for advancing a sustainable CE. A key challenge, however, lies in fostering awareness and engagement, since these are essential for delivering environmental, social, and economic benefits. Yet, limited knowledge and entrenched unsustainable habits can significantly hinder progress. Addressing this issue requires well-coordinated strategies, reforms in educational systems, and the use of social platforms to generate social pressure and promote behavioral change [119].

An example comes from the Galápagos Islands and the collaboration between Toyota and WWF, which led to the development of an integrated waste management system incorporating recycling, composting, and education programs [30]. Between January 2007 and August 2009, these efforts resulted in a 260% increase in waste recycling, a 35% reduction in per capita waste generation, and a 400% improvement in the efficiency of composting and recycling systems on Santa Cruz Island [31]. This case illustrates how education, when combined with technical solutions, can significantly amplify impacts in favor of sustainability.

In Langkawi, Malaysia, the adoption of integrated solid waste management models could enhance sustainability through public–private sector partnerships. These strategies include public awareness and education programs, as well as initiatives to encourage recycling and composting [5,19]. Raising local and tourist awareness about the impacts of poor waste practices will also contribute to improving and strengthening the island’s image as a sustainable tourism destination.

Beyond its plastic ban, Zlarin’s transition was remarkable for the degree of community involvement. Residents actively promoted alternatives to single-use plastics, invested in household composters, and normalized sustainable consumption practices [5]. This island case demonstrates that regulatory measures are most effective when they are co-created and reinforced by the community.

As discussed earlier, the Tilos case also demonstrates that multi-stakeholder partnerships are most effective when combined with strong community engagement. The program’s success relied on residents adopting new behaviors—sorting 15 different waste streams at home and participating in awareness activities—which transformed the island’s social norms around waste [107]. This dual perspective shows that Tilos can be read both as a partnership model and as an engagement success.

6. Discussion

The case studies reviewed demonstrate that circular transitions in island contexts are most successful when they combine technical solutions with social and institutional enablers. Initiatives such as Tilos (Greece) and Zlarin (Croatia) show that regulatory measures and infrastructure investment are most effective when reinforced by strong community engagement and trust. Similarly, regional collaborations like the Moana Taka Partnership in the South Pacific succeed because they address scale limitations through collective logistics and shared infrastructure. These examples suggest that success depends not only on the presence of innovative tools, but also on the alignment of local actors, funding, and governance frameworks. However, there are still remaining gaps and limitations that might hinder a systemic circular transformation. Table 4 presents the Case studies mapping to the CE challenges, as well as identifies remaining gaps and limitations.

Table 4. Case studies, challenges addressed and remaining gaps/limitations.

No	Case Study	Challenges Addressed	Remaining Gaps/Limitations
1	Tilos (Greece)	4, 8, 1	Funding continuity uncertain, scalability to larger islands unclear
2	Zlarin (Croatia)	6, 4	Dependent on community engagement, limited enforcement capacity
3	Moana Taka partnership (Pacific)	5, 3	Reliance on external logistics, not fully circular at a local level
4	Galápagos	4, 7	Data gaps on diversion rates. funding continuity uncertain
5	Langkawi (Malaysia)	7, 4	Weak enforcement, tourist transience limits awareness impact
6	Nosy Be (Madagascar)	7, 3	Projects still theoretical, cost/operational viability untested
7	Guadeloupe	5, 7	Depends on regional cooperation
8	Barbados	7, 3	High daily waste persists
9	Gili Trawangan (Indonesia)	2, 4, 8	Volunteer-driven, scalability to larger islands unclear
10	Palau	3, 4, 5	Focuses on beverages containers only, broader waste streams ignored
11	Paros (Greece)	4, 6, 1	Dependent on NGOs/private actors, integration into governance uncertain
12	Maldives	7, 2	Regional waste systems still incomplete
13	Canary islands	8, 4	Scalability to larger islands unclear
14	Mauritius	7,6	Slow scaling of diversion targets, landfill still dominant

Table 4. Case studies, challenges addressed and remaining gaps/limitations.

No	Case Study	Challenges Addressed	Remaining Gaps/Limitations
1	Tilos (Greece)	4, 8, 1	Funding continuity uncertain, scalability to larger islands unclear
2	Zlarin (Croatia)	6, 4	Dependent on community engagement, limited enforcement capacity
3	Moana Taka partnership (Pacific)	5, 3	Reliance on external logistics, not fully circular at a local level
4	Galápagos	4, 7	Data gaps on diversion rates. funding continuity uncertain
5	Langkawi (Malaysia)	7, 4	Weak enforcement, tourist transience limits awareness impact
6	Nosy Be (Madagascar)	7, 3	Projects still theoretical, cost/operational viability untested
7	Guadeloupe	5, 7	Depends on regional cooperation
8	Barbados	7, 3	High daily waste persists
9	Gili Trawangan (Indonesia)	2, 4, 8	Volunteer-driven, scalability to larger islands unclear
10	Palau	3, 4, 5	Focuses on beverages containers only, broader waste streams ignored
11	Paros (Greece)	4, 6, 1	Dependent on NGOs/private actors, integration into governance uncertain
12	Maldives	7, 2	Regional waste systems still incomplete
13	Canary islands	8, 4	Scalability to larger islands unclear
14	Mauritius	7,6	Slow scaling of diversion targets, landfill still dominant

What Table 4 depicts, apart from the way that the different initiatives respond to the barriers identified earlier, is an asymmetry among the case studies scope and intensity. There are cases (like Tilos, Paros or Gili Trawangan), where they integrate regulatory tools, infrastructure and stakeholder and community engagement, therefore addressing multiple barriers at the same time. On the other hand, there are case studies like Palau and Nosy Be, which either focus on one single waste stream, or they remain theoretical pilot projects, therefore being uncertain if they will achieve systemic change. This difference among the case studies, underlines that circular transformation might rely more on the integration of technological, social and governance parameters, rather than single case interventions.

At the same time, Table 4 highlights the fact that interventions related to technical capacity, stakeholder engagement and increase in awareness and waste management infrastructure are well represented, while others such as the integration of CE policy frameworks, or the access to financial resources and investments need further enhancement. This imbalance shows that in order to achieve systemic change, future initiatives need to pair both technical capacities with mechanisms to achieve stable financing, collaboration, and governance support. This kind of combination will, on one hand mitigate the present gaps, while, on the other hand make transferability of practices easier. In addition, the quantitative trends of Table 1 further suggest that waste generation scales with tourism, therefore suggesting that policy and CE measures should prioritise tourism intensive islands, where seasonality further stresses the infrastructure.

To complement this qualitative mapping the case study–barrier linkages presented in Table 4 were aggregated to identify which barrier–solution pairs were most frequently observed (Table 5). This process aimed to provide a clear picture on which circular practices commonly address each barrier type and whether gaps remain.

Table 5. Frequency of barrier–solution pairings across the 14 island case studies.

No	Barriers/Challenge	Circular Practices Addressing It	Frequency (No of Cases)	Case Study
1.	Lack of integrated circular economy (CE) policy frameworks	Multi-stakeholder partnerships; Policy & regulatory tools	2	Tilos, Paros
2.	Insufficient technical and institutional capacity	Multi-stakeholder partnerships	2	Gili Trawangan, Maldives
3.	Limited access to financial resources and investments	Policy & regulatory tools	4	Moana Taka, Nosy Be, Barbados, Palau
4.	Low public awareness and behavioral inertia	Community engagement & education	8	Tilos, Zlarin, Galápagos, Langkawi, Gili Trawangan, Palau, Paros, Canary Islands
5.	Small market size and remoteness	Recycling & composting innovations; Community engagement & education	3	Moana Taka, Guadeloupe, Palau
6.	Over-reliance on imports and linear production systems	Recycling & composting innovations; Community engagement & education	3	Zlarin, Paros, Mauritius
7.	Inadequate waste management infrastructure	Recycling & composting innovations	7	Galápagos, Langkawi, Nosy Be, Guadeloupe, Barbados, Maldives, Mauritius
8.	Fragmented governance and weak policy enforcement	Multi-stakeholder partnerships; Policy & regulatory tools	3	Tilos, Gili Trawangan, Canary Islands

Table 5. Frequency of barrier–solution pairings across the 14 island case studies.

No	Barriers/Challenge	Circular Practices Addressing It	Frequency (No of Cases)	Case Study
1.	Lack of integrated circular economy (CE) policy frameworks	Multi-stakeholder partnerships; Policy & regulatory tools	2	Tilos, Paros
2.	Insufficient technical and institutional capacity	Multi-stakeholder partnerships	2	Gili Trawangan, Maldives
3.	Limited access to financial resources and investments	Policy & regulatory tools	4	Moana Taka, Nosy Be, Barbados, Palau
4.	Low public awareness and behavioral inertia	Community engagement & education	8	Tilos, Zlarin, Galápagos, Langkawi, Gili Trawangan, Palau, Paros, Canary Islands
5.	Small market size and remoteness	Recycling & composting innovations; Community engagement & education	3	Moana Taka, Guadeloupe, Palau
6.	Over-reliance on imports and linear production systems	Recycling & composting innovations; Community engagement & education	3	Zlarin, Paros, Mauritius
7.	Inadequate waste management infrastructure	Recycling & composting innovations	7	Galápagos, Langkawi, Nosy Be, Guadeloupe, Barbados, Maldives, Mauritius
8.	Fragmented governance and weak policy enforcement	Multi-stakeholder partnerships; Policy & regulatory tools	3	Tilos, Gili Trawangan, Canary Islands

The circular practices addressing each barrier were derived from Figure 2, while the frequency of appearance of the case studies was derived in Table 4, therefore ensuring consistency with the analytical framework.

Table 5 highlights that social-awareness (No. 4) and infrastructural barriers (No. 7) are most frequently targeted, mainly via community-engagement and recycling-innovations, while policy integration (No. 1), market-scale (No. 5–6), and financial (No. 3) barriers remain least represented. This pattern indicates that most island initiatives emphasize operational and behavioral improvements over systemic economic or policy transformation.

On the other hand, across the cases, several common enabling factors emerge. These include the availability of funding mechanisms that provide continuous resources for implementation and scaling (e.g., landfill taxes, donor-funded programs); awareness and education activities that foster behavioral change and long-term adoption (e.g., Galápagos, Langkawi); trust and transparency in governance, which encourage participation and collective ownership (e.g., Gili Trawangan and Tilos); and community-tailored actions that align interventions with local practices and culture.

Despite these successes and enabling factors, gaps and limitations persist, while scaling remains challenging. Funding is often fragmented or temporary, tied to specific projects that eventually end, leaving long-term continuity uncertain. Measuring the impact of activities presents another barrier: while broad estimates of CE potential exist, project-specific metrics remain limited, complicating replication and policy support. Infrastructure gaps also persist, particularly in smaller or remote islands where land and resources are constrained. Moreover, cultural resistance and behavioral inertia can slow adoption, as waste management is still frequently perceived as solely a government responsibility, limiting citizen participation.

The analysis and discussion of this paper suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for circular transitions in islands. Each island has unique ecological, social, and economic conditions that require tailored strategies, often combining elements from the multiple thematic categories presented in the previous sections. For instance, Tilos’ success combined regulatory, technical, partnership, and educational measures, showing that the most durable solutions activate all four thematic categories simultaneously. Replicability is therefore not about copying a single model, but about adapting approaches after a thorough assessment of local environments, capacities, and needs. Islands that invest in understanding their context are better positioned to design circular interventions that are both effective and socially legitimate.

Building on the insights of this paper, a decision logic for circular transitions in the islands emerges. Two parameters that differentiate island areas, in terms of suitable circular interventions, are their touristic intensity and their infrastructural/technical maturity. For example, islands like Santorini, Mykonos and Gili Trawangan, with high touristic levels and limited infrastructures could benefit more from community-driven and partnership-based initiatives that can address waste seasonality. On the other hand, in islands like Malta and Tenerife, which are more moderate in terms of tourism but with more developed infrastructure, actions related to policy tools and regulatory coordination would be more appropriate towards their circular transition. Finally, initiatives based on regional cooperation and common service models (such as the Moana Taka partnership), would contribute to the circular transition of remote islands with scarce resources. This typological understanding provides a theoretical step toward a context-sensitive framework for matching circular economy interventions to island characteristics therefore, helping policymakers identify appropriate intervention packages.

7. Conclusions

Island regions face various challenges in managing waste due to their characteristics, e.g., geographic isolation, limited land availability, and dependence on tourism-driven economies. Traditional disposal methods, such as landfilling and open dumping, have proven unsustainable under these conditions. This paper has argued that the circular economy (CE) offers a more viable framework for islands by using waste as a resource and integrating material recovery into local systems of production and consumption. Overall, the study successfully meets its objective of examining how circular economy principles can provide effective, context-specific solutions to the persistent waste management challenges faced by island regions.

The comparative analysis of island case studies indicates that transitions towards circularity are not achieved through isolated interventions but through the interaction of various dimensions: multi-stakeholder partnerships, recycling and composting innovations, policy and regulatory tools, and community engagement and education. Successful initiatives, including those in Tilos, Paros, Palau, and Barbados, demonstrate that integrated approaches combining technical, institutional, and social elements are more likely to achieve systemic change.

Favorable conditions across the examined cases include steady financial mechanisms, such as deposit-refund schemes or public–private contracts, providing continuity beyond project lifecycles, as well as transparent governance that fosters trust and participation. Education and social learning further achieve and accelerate behavioral change, while locally sensitive schemes ensure that interventions align with the material and cultural realities of each island. Yet, these transitions continue to face constraints such as the small market sizes, fragmented governance, and high transport costs, which limit economies of scale, while the measurement of impacts remains underdeveloped, with rare quantitative evidence on waste diversion, emissions reduction, and economic performance per activity. Addressing these gaps will require robust monitoring frameworks, stronger inter-island cooperation, and the integration of circular economy principles into broader development and climate strategies.

Overall, the findings suggest that circular economy transitions on islands are both feasible and necessary. They provide pathways to reduce waste generation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and generate local economic value, while enhancing resilience in the face of environmental and social pressures. These insights resonate with the priorities of the European Green Deal [24], the EU Circular Economy Action Plan [25], and the Mission Restore Our Ocean and Waters [120], which highlight islands and coastal regions as living labs for advancing circular and regenerative innovations and practices.

However, this study was subject to various limitations. Firstly, the case studies examined refer to recent pilot and sometimes theoretical projects that depend on donor, NGO support, or have not studied their long-term sustainability. Another challenge refers to the fact that quantitative data (e.g., waste diversion rates, emissions reductions, and economic benefits) are either scarce or outdated and incomplete. This limits the researchers’ ability to compare the case studies and initiatives in a systematic way. Additionally, the content of each case study is highly dependent and tailored to the local cultural, institutional and financial framework, which makes the transferability more constrained. Finally, even though the case studies presented represent various geographical areas, some territories are better represented than others, resulting in an uneven picture of the circular initiatives and practices in the islands globally.

It should also be noted that the proposed analytical framework is based on contextual assumptions reflecting the specific environmental, social, and economic conditions of each island, and these should be carefully considered when adapting or replicating the model to other regions.

On this ground, future research should focus on developing standardized and data-driven frameworks to monitor and quantify the impacts of circular economy (CE) initiatives in island contexts—using measurable indicators (e.g., waste diversion rates, material circularity, and community participation). Further studies should explore replicable governance and financing models, such as deposit-return schemes, extended producer responsibility means, and public–private partnerships that can sustain CE implementation beyond pilot scale. In addition, through the analysis of inter-island cooperation, operational synergies for shared waste treatment, logistics, and knowledge exchange will be identified and therefore contribute towards overcoming remoteness and diseconomies of scale. Finally, as tourism remains a key driver of waste generation, future research should model the interaction between seasonal tourism flows and CE performance, providing guidance for adaptive policy design and behavioral interventions targeting both visitors and residents. These directions will equip researchers and policymakers with quantitative evidence and actionable insights, enhancing the scalability and transferability of successful practices across diverse insular contexts.