Climate Evidence in Action: How Evidence Based Decision-Making Tools Shape Circular Water and Waste Infrastructure Decisions

Circular water and waste infrastructure systems are central to climate mitigation, adaptation, and resource efficiency strategies. Evidence-based decision-making tools, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA), multi-criteria frameworks, and AI-enabled digital platforms, are increasingly used to inform planning, procurement, regulation, and investment decisions. In this context, evidence-based decision-making tools refer to structured analytical approaches used to evaluate options and support decision processes.Existing research has established the methodological foundations of these tools and their capacity to generate quantitative insights. However, a growing body of work in policy studies and science and technology studies suggests that evidence does not act neutrally in decision processes. Instead, it is shaped by, and in turn shapes, governance dynamics, including institutional rules, stakeholder power, framing of uncertainty, and value trade-offs. Approaches such as evidence-based policy, socio-technical transitions, and decision sciences (e.g., bounded rationality, deliberative decision-making, and multi-actor governance) highlight that the influence of evidence depends on context, interpretation, and negotiation.Despite widespread reliance on quantitative tools, limited research has examined their practical influence within real-world infrastructure decision arenas. This Research Topic focuses on climate evidence as it functions within governance systems, rather than as standalone technical output, with a focus on circular water and waste infrastructure, including water supply, wastewater treatment, and resource recovery systems aligned with circular economy principles. GoalThis Research Topic aims to examine how evidence-based decision-making tools influence circular water and waste infrastructure decisions within clearly defined governance contexts. Contributions should move beyond methodological description to analyse how tools influence, constrain, legitimise, or fail to affect decisions in practice.Submissions should clearly identify the decision arena and demonstrate how evidence is interpreted, compared, or contested. Authors are expected to position their work in relation to at least one comparative dimension (e.g., across tools, cases, or governance contexts), or explain how their findings support comparison beyond a single case.Particular interest lies in understanding how digitalisation and AI-enabled modelling alter transparency, accountability, and legitimacy in infrastructure governance. For example:How do algorithmic outputs interact with regulatory frameworks?How are uncertainty and value trade-offs managed in politically sensitive settings?Under what conditions does quantitative evidence meaningfully influence infrastructure pathways?Scope and information for authorsSubmissions should explicitly engage with a defined decision-making process in circular water and waste infrastructure contexts. Contributions that focus solely on methodological development (e.g., new models, tools, or assessment results) without demonstrating relevance to a decision process, institutional setting, or stakeholder context are unlikely to be considered.This Research Topic welcomes empirical studies, comparative analyses, and policy- or practice-oriented contributions that engage directly with real-world decision processes.Relevant contributions include, but are not limited to:Empirical case studies - Analysis of how evidence-based tools are used within specific real-world decision processes.Comparative analyses - Studies that systematically compare tools, cases, or governance contexts to generate transferable insights.Tool–context interaction studies - Examination of how decision-support tools are adapted, interpreted, or reshaped within institutional settings.Digital and AI-enabled decision systems - Investigation of the role and governance implications of data-driven and algorithmic decision-support tools.Institutional and organisational analyses - Exploration of organisational capacity, incentives, and barriers affecting the uptake of evidence in decision-making.Critical perspectives - Evaluation of how evidence, models, or metrics influence power dynamics, priorities, and infrastructure pathways.Authors are expected to specify:Decision arenaDecision-makersInstitutional and geographical contextCriteria and constraintsRole of evidence in shaping outcomes Topic editors: Jiseon You, Neil Phillips, Kirti Goyal Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/78305/climate-evidence-in-action-how-evidence-based-decision-making-tools-shape-circular-water-and-waste-infrastructure-decisions