1. Introduction
Today, the most severe case of a man-made disaster is the war in Ukraine. The Russian invasion has resulted in catastrophic consequences, including immense loss of life and extensive destruction of buildings and infrastructure, particularly in the eastern, southern, and northern regions of the country. According to the third Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (World Bank, 2023), the direct damage in Ukraine caused by Russian aggression has reached almost 152 billion US dollars after almost two years of the war. The estimated recovery and reconstruction needs over a ten-year period amount to approximately 486 billion US dollars (World Bank, 2023). There is an urgent need for both the construction of new buildings and the restoration of damaged ones, alongside the implementation of effective disaster waste management strategies that align with European norms and standards – particularly in light of Ukraine’s intention to integrate into the European Union (EU). In this regard, the European Commission’s initiatives related to the circular economy (CE) and the European Green Deal, with their emphasis on the construction sector, should serve as foundational pillars for Ukraine’s post-war recovery and reconstruction. Consequently, developing a strategy for circular and climate-neutral post-disaster reconstruction is essential to ensuring a sustainable and resilient rebuilding process.
Contributions in the field of post-disaster recovery with a focus on CE aspects have been presented through case studies of post-earthquake recovery in Turkey and Syria (Reference Xiao, Deng, Hou, Shen and GencelXiao et al. 2023), Nepal (Reference Khanal, Subedi, Yadawa and PandeyKhanal et al. 2021), China (Reference WeiWei 2023), Ecuador (Criollo et al. Reference Criollo and Tapia2020), and Iran (Reference Askarizadeh, Karbassi, Ghalibaf and NouriAskarizadeh et al. 2016); post-tsunami recovery in Japan (Reference IdeIde 2015) and Sri Lanka (Mulligan & Shaw Reference Mulligan and Shaw2011); post-flood recovery in Italy (Reference Gabrielli, Amato, Balducci, Galluzzi and BeolchiniGabrielli et al. 2018); and post-conflict recovery in the Gaza Strip (Reference AbuHamed, Al Bursh, Abu Mfarreh and YoshidaAbuHamed et al. 2023) and Libya (Ali & Ezeah Reference Ali and Essah2017). From the perspective of CE principles, research on post-disaster reconstruction has predominantly focused on recycling and waste recovery. Notable exceptions include recent studies by Reference Hartley, Baldassarre and KirchherrHartley et al. (2024) and Reference Çetin and KirchherrÇetin and Kirchherr (2025), which are among the first to initiate this discourse, underscoring the emerging nature of this field. Reference Hartley, Baldassarre and KirchherrHartley et al. (2024) introduce CE as a crisis response mechanism, while Reference Çetin and KirchherrÇetin and Kirchherr (2025) pioneer the integration of four fundamental CE principles. Despite these advancements, lifecycle extension strategies for building components and circular design considerations remain unexplored. Moreover, the case of Ukraine’s recovery remains completely unexplored within this framework. In response, this study seeks to address the following research question: How to enhance and facilitate the circular and climate-neutral reconstruction in post-disaster territories in general, and in post-war Ukraine in particular? This study aims to propose a framework for circular post-disaster recovery and reconstruction by identifying CE initiatives that can effectively contribute to these processes.
2. Research methodology
A five-step approach that combines critical review and conceptual analysis is proposed to address the research questions. Step 1 involves analysing contributions to disaster recovery, focusing specifically on CE aspects. A preliminary search in Scopus (March 2024) found no studies specifically addressing circular post-disaster reconstruction. However, following this initial search, we identified a limited number of recently published works on CE-related post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, which are also analyzed in this study. This finding underscores the emerging nature of this research field. Step 2 provides an overview of the war in Ukraine as one of the most severe contemporary man-made disasters, showing the magnitude and scale of destruction to critical infrastructure. Step 3 aims to explore global and regional initiatives on disaster management to assess the effectiveness of existing mechanisms and potential enablers that support CE and decarbonization policies. Step 4 comprises examining the European Commission’s CE and low-carbon policies, aiming to clarify regulatory frameworks and normative guidelines within the construction sector that could be integrated into Ukrainian legislation. Finally, Step 5 involves proposing a framework for a circular post-disaster reconstruction.
To ensure a comprehensive selection of relevant contributions, the following search string was designed to cover key areas of knowledge related to “post-disaster reconstruction” and “disaster waste management”: “disaster” OR “earthquake” OR “tsunami” OR “floods” OR “war” OR “conflict” (search in article title) AND “waste” OR “recycling” OR “debris” OR “destroyed building” (search in article title, abstract, keywords) AND “reconstruction” OR “construction” OR “rebuild” OR “recover” OR “restoration” (search in article title). The initial search, conducted on March 24, 2024, yielded 141 documents. To ensure the utmost relevance of a final sample, a mutual screening process was applied, focusing on the abstracts of the publications. This process resulted in the selection of 25 records for further consideration. The primary inclusion criteria were the paper’s relevance to the recovery phase and its focus on reuse or recycling strategies operationalization.
3. Literature review
Table 1 summarizes the publications on disaster recovery with an emphasis on CE aspects. The selected articles are categorized into four themes, as presented in Table 1. Theme A includes papers devoted to research challenges and trends in post-disaster recovery and debris management. Theme B covers contributions dealing with the influencing factors of reconstruction and waste management. Theme C includes papers focused on the methodological aspects of reconstruction and waste management. Theme D encompasses contributions to waste volume estimation. Themes C and D, which provide conceptual and methodological contributions, are the most interesting to analyse in terms of developing a framework for circular post-disaster recovery and reconstruction and are discussed below.
Table 1. Post-disaster reconstruction and waste management
The articles in Theme C explore resource-efficient disaster waste management, decarbonization in rebuilding efforts, environmental considerations, and waste treatment strategies through case studies of the earthquake in China (Ali and Ezeah Reference Ali and Essah2017; Reference Tang and XuTang and Xu 2013), the conflict in Libya (Reference WeiWei 2023), the flood in South Korea (Reference Oh and KangOh and Kang 2013), and the tsunami in Japan (Reference Asari, Sakai, Yoshioka, Tojo, Tasaki, Takigami and WatanabeAsari et al. 2013). Ali and Ezeah (Reference Ali and Essah2017) propose a framework for post-conflict waste management in Libya, while Reference WeiWei (2023) advocates for climate-friendly rebuilding strategies in post-disaster areas in China. The study by Reference Oh and KangOh and Kang (2013) outlines environmentally sound guidelines for flood waste management, while Reference Asari, Sakai, Yoshioka, Tojo, Tasaki, Takigami and WatanabeAsari et al. (2013) introduce the manual Strategies for Separation and Treatment of Disaster Waste based on available guidelines for disaster waste management in various countries. The contributions in Theme D enhance understanding of waste volume estimation approaches and the quantification of recyclable materials through case studies of earthquakes in Ecuador, Nepal, Turkey, Iran, and flooding in Italy. Of the seven contributions in this theme, five focus on disaster waste volume estimation, including post-earthquake debris volume estimation in Nepal (Reference Khanal, Subedi, Yadawa and PandeyKhanal et al. 2021), post-earthquake waste proportions in Turkey (Reference Xiao, Deng, Hou, Shen and GencelXiao et al. 2023), post-earthquake waste estimation (Reference Kaptan, Aguiar and CunhaKaptan et al. 2024), post-earthquake debris volume estimation in Iran (Reference Askarizadeh, Karbassi, Ghalibaf and NouriAskarizadeh et al. 2016), and the quantity and types of post-flood waste generated in Italy (Reference Gabrielli, Amato, Balducci, Galluzzi and BeolchiniGabrielli et al. 2018). Only two contributions are directly relevant to circular economy strategies, namely the study by Reference Naji, Mahmood and JalilNaji et al. (2020), which focuses on the volume estimation of recycled aggregate concrete for post-earthquake reconstruction in Iraq and the study by Reference Criollo and TapiaCriollo & Tapia (2020), which analyses material and energy flows for the circular economy in post-earthquake Ecuador.
A content analysis reveals that while some efforts have been made to conceptualize disaster waste management within a recycling framework, a comprehensive approach to circular post-disaster recovery – integrating (i) the circular design, (ii) the repair of damaged buildings, and (iii) the reuse of building components and recycling of materials from disaster-affected buildings – remains lacking.
Several very recently published papers on post-disaster reconstruction related to the CE indicate that this field is only nascent. The first contribution by Reference Hartley, Baldassarre and KirchherrHartley et al. (2024), views the CE as a response to the crisis and attempts to push the discourse in this direction. This study explores how the CE can help address converging global crises by examining its impact on technological innovation, supply chains, public policy, and consumer behaviour. It highlights key strategies for integrating circularity into crisis management. A very recent article by Reference Çetin and KirchherrÇetin and Kirchherr, 2025, integrates all four core CE principles – narrowing, slowing, closing, and regenerating resource loops – into post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. The framework developed in response to the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Türkiye, builds on existing disaster risk management and sustainable recovery frameworks and outlines ten action strategies (Reference Çetin and KirchherrÇetin and Kirchherr, 2025). The emerging academic focus on circular post-disaster recovery underscores the nascent nature of the field.
4. The potential for circular recovery for Ukraine
4.1. Overview of the war in Ukraine
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to the widespread destruction of critical infrastructure across all regions, with the most severe damage concentrated in border areas and occupied territories. To date, hundreds of towns across Ukraine have been targeted by missile attacks, resulting in significant destruction. Notably, some towns have been completely devastated, resembling post-earthquake or post-hurricane disaster zones. An example of such destruction is Bakhmut, Donetsk region (Figure 1).
As of early 2024, the total direct damage caused by Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine amounted to 157.2 billion US dollars (Report, 2024b). The Donetsk and Kharkiv regions suffered the highest economic losses, amounting to 37.374 billion US dollars and 30.224 billion US dollars, respectively, followed by the Luhansk (17.127 billion), Zaporizhzhia (14.773 billion), and Kherson (12.277 billion) regions. In terms of the number of affected buildings, the Donetsk region experienced the most extensive destruction, with nearly 91.640 buildings destroyed or damaged.
Figure 1. Scale and degree of destruction in Bakhmut, Donetsk region, July 2023 (Official 2023)
To explore the hierarchical damage to building infrastructure at the national level by sectors and sub-sectors, a sunburst chart was created using data from the beginning of 2024, retrieved and aggregated from the aforementioned report (Report, 2024b). Figure 2 illustrates the sunburst chart, which consolidates the hierarchical damage by sub-sectors in terms of physical damage, percentages, and monetary values. The chart includes two levels of categories, demonstrating how the outer rings relate to the inner rings. A total of six socio-economic sectors are represented in the chart. As shown in Figure 2, a total of 223,148 buildings were affected across six sectors, including 76,812 buildings destroyed and 146,336 buildings damaged, with direct damage amounting to 38.64 and 35.276 billion US dollars, respectively. In the multi-apartment buildings sub-sector, 19,276 (10.71%) and 6,862 (3.81%) buildings were damaged and destroyed, respectively. For some sub-sectors, the number of affected buildings reaches one-third. For instance, in the healthcare sector, 29.69% of hospitals were damaged.
Overall, considering the hierarchical data on damage consolidated by sectors in physical, cost, and percentage terms over nearly two years of war, it is evident that Russia’s aggression has led to catastrophic consequences, particularly in terms of the loss of the affected towns’ ability to ensure adequate living conditions. Due to the extensive destruction, there is a tremendous need for construction in Ukraine after the war. Furthermore, the destruction has resulted in a vast amount of construction waste, necessitating effective waste management strategies.
Figure 2. Sunburst chart of consolidated damage by elements caused by the war in Ukraine
4.2. Global and European Union disaster management mechanisms
Robust mechanisms are essential for preventing disasters and managing their impacts. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 is a global initiative of the United Nations (Sendai Framework 2015). The Framework outlines four priorities for disaster risk management, including “Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction”. Since 2008, the United Nations, the European Union, and the World Bank have been jointly helping post-disaster countries in assessing recovery needs and identifying recovery and reconstruction measures. In this regard, the Joint Declaration on Post-Crisis Assessments and Recovery Planning (Joint Declaration, 2008) was signed. The Declaration is operationalized through the “Post Disaster Needs Assessment” (PDNA) and the “Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment” (RPBA) for post-conflict countries. RPBA is a standardized approach that identifies immediate and medium-term recovery and peacebuilding needs for post-conflict countries. The RPBA report incorporates the “building back better” framework, as well as principles of green, resilient, inclusive, and sustainable recovery and reconstruction (Joint Declaration, 2008). From 2013 to 2021, RPBAs were carried out for post-conflict countries worldwide, including Ukraine (2014-2015), Mali (2015), Nigeria (2016), CAR (2016), Cameroon (2017), Burkina Faso (2019-2020), and Mozambique (2020-2021) (Post-disaster, 2024). Most recently, the third Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA3) was conducted for war-torn Ukraine (World Bank, 2023). Covering almost two years of the war, the RDNA3 estimates damage and losses, as well as recovery and reconstruction needs over the next 10 years.
The Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) (Decision No 1313/2013/EU), adopted by the European Union, establishes an integrated approach to disaster risk management to enhance the effectiveness of national systems in terms of prevention, preparation, and response to all types of natural and man-made disasters. The mechanism consolidates 27 EU countries and 10 other participating states, including Ukraine, which joined in 2023. The first progress report from the Commission was issued in March 2024 (Report 2024a). According to this report, UCPM provided life-saving assistance in the context of the Russian aggression against Ukraine, with 126 requests from Ukraine in 2022 and 50 in 2023. Furthermore, the Commission recently enacted the Recommendation on “Union Disaster Resilience Goals” (Commission Recommendation 2023), establishing five goals for disaster resilience: “anticipate,” “prepare,” “alert,” “respond,” and “secure.” These goals are accompanied by horizontal principles, progress reporting, and continuous review and revision to address evolving needs and new circumstances. Its accompanying document, the Communication on “European Union Disaster Resilience Goals: Acting Together to Deal with Future Emergencies” (Communication, 2023), clarifies the nature of these new circumstances and current challenges, including Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Overall, the disaster resilience goals aim to enhance the EU’s overall resilience in terms of social, economic, and environmental benefits.
4.3. European Union’s CE and decarbonization regulations in the construction
The European Commission’s environmental policy in the construction industry promotes CE principles within the EU, pursuant to the “A new Circular Economy Action Plan” (European Commission, 2020b), and supports the decarbonization strategy outlined in the “European Green Deal”. According to the “Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC”, which serves as the legal framework for waste management in the EU, construction and demolition waste is designated as a priority waste stream. This directive establishes the hierarchy of waste management strategies in line with CE-focused approaches outlined in the Action Plan. Several guiding documents have been adopted to facilitate the transition from lower to higher priority circular strategies, including the “EU Construction and Demolition Waste Management Protocol” (European Commission, 2016), “Guidelines for the waste audits before demolition and renovation works of buildings” (European Commission, 2018a) and “Circular Economy Principles for Building Design” (European Commission, 2020a). Furthermore, the European Commission’s Communication on the “European Green Deal” endorses the objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050, in alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement. In this regard, the EU Policy Roadmap (European Commission, 2018b), developed by the World Green Building Council, introduces a policy framework aimed at accelerating the decarbonization of buildings and construction - one of the highest CO2-emitting sectors globally. The roadmap outlines a timeline of recommended actions for EU policymakers to facilitate the decarbonization of buildings by 2050. These actions address not only CO2 emissions from building operations but also the often-overlooked emissions associated with materials and construction processes, thereby accounting for the entire life-cycle carbon impact of the built environment. To further contribute to the “European Green Deal” and the “Digital Decade policy programme”, the “Transition Pathway for Construction” (European Commission, 2023) was developed to support a greener construction ecosystem, enable digital transition as a driver of resilience, and foster a competitive and sustainable industry.
Overall, the European Commission’s environmental policies in the construction sector demonstrate a comprehensive commitment to advancing CE principles and achieving climate neutrality. The European Union has established a robust framework that prioritizes sustainable practices in managing construction and demolition waste, promotes circular building design, and drives decarbonization through green building initiatives and renewable energy transition - while also recognizing digitalization as a key lever for progress in this domain. These norms and standards, derived from EU directives, regulations, and guidelines, are particularly relevant to Ukraine and align fully with the Build Back Better approach. Therefore, they should be integrated into the country’s recovery strategy. However, the first crucial step is the implementation of these regulatory frameworks into Ukrainian legislation.
5. Results
Figure 3 presents the dual hierarchy of 6Rs strategies as an inspiring framework for circular recovery and reconstruction of a post-disaster territory (PDT). The extensive destruction and damage to buildings, necessitating large-scale waste management alongside an unprecedented demand for new construction and repair, have led to the development of this hierarchy of circular strategies. Embedded within the previously developed “Closing–Slowing–Future–Past” (CSFP) quadrant model (Reference Shevchenko, Yannou, Saidani, Cluzel, Ranjbari, Esfandabadi, Danko and LeroyShevchenko et al. 2022), this hierarchy distinguishes between slowing- and closing-related strategies based on their past- or future-oriented operationalization (see Figure 3). The CSFP model has been validated in our previous studies for simple, complicated, and complex products, including packaging, clothing, electronic equipment (such as mobile phone), a pump, and medical device. It serves as a maturity scale for assessing and enhancing circularity performance, incorporating 43 circular design strategies and 225 sub-strategies (Reference Shevchenko, Cluzel, Yannou, Shams Esfandabadi, Ranjbari, Saidani and DankoShevchenko et al. 2024).
The key distinction between the proposed dual hierarchy and the traditional 6R circular strategy hierarchy (Reference Reike, Vermeulen and WitjesReike et al. 2018) lies in the two-vector operationalization of each strategy addressing both past and future dimensions to encompass disaster waste management and the design of new buildings. The upper half of the hierarchy consists of two slowing-oriented targets, incorporating product life extension strategies aimed at saving the value of building components in the present (R1p, R2p, R3p, R4p, and R5p) and in the future (R1f, R2f, R3f, R4f, and R5f). The lower half of the hierarchy, in contrast, comprises two closing-oriented design targets within the ad hoc recycling strategy (R6p, R6f).
Figure 3. A dual hierarchy of 6Rs strategies for circular reconstruction of a post-disaster territory
Relying on the dual Re-X strategies conceptual model for circular post-disaster reconstruction, the potential for recycling materials (R6p) and reusing components (R1p-R5p), along with opportunities for their utilization, represents the circularity potential of disaster-affected buildings. The development of metrics to assess this potential is crucial for construction companies seeking to implement circular practices (Reference Saidani, Shevchenko, Shams Esfandabadi, Ranjbari, Mesa, Yannou and CluzelSaidani et al. 2024), as it enables data-based decision-making, facilitates circular investment justification, and enhances the scalability of circular reconstruction efforts. The assessment of the circularity potential of affected buildings in post-conflict areas should focus on three types of buildings: (i) destroyed buildings, (ii) damaged buildings requiring deconstruction, and (iii) damaged buildings requiring demolition. Damaged buildings for repair are excluded from the assessment, as they do not contribute to waste streams relevant to the evaluation of recyclable materials and components for reconstruction.
A critical role in advancing post-disaster circular reconstruction will be played by a data platform that enables comprehensive data accessibility and enhances interconnectivity among stakeholders. In the context of the dual circular strategies operationalization model, such a database should contribute to the two-vector operationalization of strategies, thereby enabling data-driven disaster waste management and fostering circular construction to eliminate building waste in the future. The most relevant data platforms that could serve as the foundation for a database in Ukraine for facilitating circular and climate-neutral reconstruction could be considered the following: the Madaster platform where material passports can be created, the French National Building Database mapping of the existing building stock, the German database ÖKOBAUDA providing a standardized database for ecological evaluations of buildings.
As key stakeholders in the circular recovery and reconstruction of war-torn Ukraine, it is crucial to primarily engage construction companies that actively implement circular practices, including circular building design and CE-oriented construction and demolition waste management. Priority should be given to companies with relevant expertise.
6. Discussion and conclusions
An analysis of existing disaster management mechanisms indicates that global and European Union standardized schemes are generally adequate for addressing contemporary challenges, providing sufficient support for comprehensive post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, including in post-conflict areas. The EU’s disaster risk management mechanism aligns with the objectives of the European Green Deal, though primarily in the context of disaster prevention. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction facilitates the integration of climate neutrality, green building, and sustainable waste management into recovery plans to a certain extent. However, the extent to which post-disaster recovery mechanisms incorporate climate neutrality and CE principles can vary significantly depending on the context, available resources, and regional priorities.
To support the “Build Back Better” principle through circular initiatives, this study introduces a dual 6Rs strategies hierarchy as an inspiring framework for circular recovery and reconstruction of a post-disaster area. Unlike the traditional 6Rs hierarchy, the dual hierarchy integrates a two-dimensional perspective that considers both past and future operationalization of each strategy. This approach facilitates (i) the preservation of the value of parts and materials from disaster-affected buildings, (ii) the restoration of damaged buildings, and (iii) the future-oriented circular design of new buildings.
One of the most compelling applications of the dual circular strategies operationalization approach is in the context of Ukraine’s war-torn building infrastructure. The scale of destruction in Ukraine presents an urgent challenge, and circular recovery within the framework of the “Building Back Better” principle is a noteworthy strategy that aligns with Ukraine’s ambition to integrate into the EU. Leveraging European Union environmental policies, Ukraine can adopt CE strategies to promote sustainable rebuilding efforts. The integration of CE principles in Ukraine’s reconstruction plan aligns with EU goals of climate neutrality and resource efficiency. To foster circular and climate-neutral reconstruction in war-torn Ukraine, the findings may serve as a foundation for developing an adequate strategy as an integral component of the country’s Reconstruction plan.
Finally, although this study focuses on a post-war Ukraine, its findings are also applicable to regions experiencing large-scale destruction of critical infrastructure due to natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis.
Open access
