Including Urban Metabolism Principles in Decision-Making: A Methodology for Planning Waste and Resource Management

Abstract

Circular economy and urban metabolism concepts have recently received great attention both in the political and academic arenas, starting a roll-over process of the “take, make, and dispose” dominant economic model that is leading to an ongoing increase of resource consumption and waste generation. However, there is a relative lack of guidelines for introducing such concepts in a decision-making process able to support the design of appropriate policies and strategies and the definition of specific actions to cope with such challenges. This paper attempts to contribute to the recent efforts at incorporating these concepts in policy and decision-making processes by providing a methodology for the development of strategic plans for waste prevention and resource management. The proposed methodology, developed within the Urban_WINS project, combines different quantitative–analytical and qualitative methods and tools, together with a participatory process. The methodology was tested in eight EU cities and allowed to formulate several measures and actions aimed at addressing the challenges posed by the current consumption patterns. Moreover, the participatory approach led to the legitimization of the strategic plans, as well as to raise awareness among stakeholders. Although it might require specific tailor-made adjustments, this methodology is suitable to be replicated in other contexts.

Full text

sustainability
Article
Including Urban Metabolism Principles in
Decision-Making: A Methodology for Planning
Waste and Resource Management
Davide Longato * , Giulia Lucertini , Michele Dalla Fontana and Francesco Musco
Departments of Architecture and Arts, Planning and Climate Change Lab, University IUAV of Venice,
S. Croce 1957, 30135 Venice, Italy; glucertini@iuav.it (G.L.); mdallafontana@iuav.it (M.D.F.);
francesco.musco@iuav.it (F.M.)
*Correspondence: dlongato@iuav.it or climatechange@iuav.it
Received: 30 January 2019; Accepted: 3 April 2019; Published: 9 April 2019


Abstract:
Circular economy and urban metabolism concepts have recently received great attention
both in the political and academic arenas, starting a roll-over process of the “take, make, and dispose”
dominant economic model that is leading to an ongoing increase of resource consumption and
waste generation. However, there is a relative lack of guidelines for introducing such concepts in
a decision-making process able to support the design of appropriate policies and strategies and
the definition of specific actions to cope with such challenges. This paper attempts to contribute
to the recent efforts at incorporating these concepts in policy and decision-making processes by
providing a methodology for the development of strategic plans for waste prevention and resource
management. The proposed methodology, developed within the Urban_WINS project, combines
different quantitative–analytical and qualitative methods and tools, together with a participatory
process. The methodology was tested in eight EU cities and allowed to formulate several measures
and actions aimed at addressing the challenges posed by the current consumption patterns. Moreover,
the participatory approach led to the legitimization of the strategic plans, as well as to raise awareness
among stakeholders. Although it might require specific tailor-made adjustments, this methodology is
suitable to be replicated in other contexts.
Keywords:
circular economy; urban metabolism; waste prevention; resource management;
policy-making; stakeholders’ engagement; strategic planning; urban sustainability
1. Introduction
In the last years, concepts such as circular economy (CE) and urban metabolism (UM) have been
receiving increasing attention worldwide. The rate of both natural resource consumption and waste
generation are, in fact, urgent issues that require proper solutions. Eurostat data show that “in 2014,
the total waste generated in the EU-28 by all economic activities and households amounted to 2.503
million tons; this was the highest amount recorded for the EU-28 during the period 2004–2014” [
1
].
The general amount of waste, as well as its composition, varies from country to country partly
according to the population size. Out of the total waste generated, municipal waste accounts only
for 10%; however, it remains a sensitive issue considering its varied composition and its strong
connection with consumer behavior [
2
]. In the period of 1995 to 2016, landfilled waste was significantly
reduced, while waste incineration increased steadily, but not as much as recycling and composting.
Although there is important evidence that waste management practices are improving according
to the European Waste Hierarchy guidance, but the amount of waste generated and the differences
between countries suggest that there is still extensive room for improvement. Moreover, this cannot
Sustainability 2019,11, 2101; doi:10.3390/su11072101 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 2 of 19
be oversimplified to a “bottom of the value chain” problem, since waste is a manifestation of a
deeper problem embedded in the way (natural) resources are extracted and used, thus depleting
natural ecosystems and consequently jeopardizing economic stability and humanity’s survival [
3
].
These concerns have been subject of discussion in the EU political arena in the last years, leading to
the development of the CE package and the CE Action Plan that recently gave a new boost to the EU
strategies for waste prevention and resource management. The CE model can be interpreted as a new
approach to deal with waste issues, but, more broadly, it provides an alternative development model
to the “take, make, and dispose” dominant economic model [
4
]. Although one of the most prominent
definitions of CE was provided by Ellen MacArthur Foundation in the initial report on CE (p. 7 [
5
]),
as argued by several authors (e.g., Kirchherr et al. [
6
], Geissdoerfer et al. [
7
]), the concept has been later
interpreted differently by many other authors. Kirchherr and colleagues [
6
] identified and analyzed
114 CE definitions, concluding that CE is mainly described as a combination of reducing, reuse,
and recycling activities with a stronger emphasis on economic prosperity rather than environmental
quality, whereas issues such as social equity and impacts on future generations are rarely mentioned.
Despite CE principles are being promoted by governments and business organizations worldwide,
there are researchers arguing that the concept is still in its infancy [
8
], and that it still presents several
limitations [9].
UM is a different approach that, although it was developed earlier and independently from
CE, endorses some of its principles. The UM metaphor conceptualizes cities as living organisms
that need inputs to support their activities, and discard outputs (waste) as a result of the process of
transformation. Kennedy et al. ([
10
], p. 44) defines UM as “[
. . .
] the total sum of the technical and
socioeconomic processes that occur in cities, resulting in growth, production of energy, and elimination
of waste [
. . .
].” In this paper, the metabolism of a city is considered in terms of (i) input of resources
(mainly as materials, goods, and products) that support socioeconomic activities and (ii) output of
waste. Other flows of products that can be derived from the implementation of activities such as
repair, upcycling, recycling, and prevention, are implicitly considered as joining elements between
waste and resource flows. As for the CE concept, the rationale behind the achievement of more
sustainable urban systems relies on the transition from linear to circular models. Unsustainable cities
are therefore characterized by a linear metabolism with great inputs from external systems (host
environment) that are transformed to produce goods and services, which are then dumped in other
systems as negative externalities (outputs). On the other hand, sustainable cities rely on a more
circular metabolism that minimizes inputs from external systems and, consequently, the production
of negative externalities and waste. This might occur through the development of internal reuse and
recycling activities, as well as applying the CE model at the city level. UM and CE are two concepts
that can benefit from each other and can be adopted simultaneously. In particular, CE activities
can be intended as practical measures to achieve more sustainable and circular urban metabolisms.
Different authors emphasized that the implementation of CE principles can greatly contribute to
the achievement of sustainable development in the UM context [
11
–
13
]. Merli and colleagues [
14
]
conducted an extended literature review revealing that the CE concept is often associated with Life
Cycle Assessment and Material Flow Analysis (MFA) that are common tools in the UM context and,
particularly, in industrial ecology. Examples of studies attempting to measure the metabolism of cities
are numerous (e.g., Niza et al. [
15
], Zhang et al. [
16
], Hoekman and von Blottnitz [
17
], Li et al. [
18
],
Thomson and Newman [
19
],
Wang et al. [20]
, Arora et al. [
21
]). Such studies contribute to a more
comprehensive and detailed knowledge of how resource flows through urban systems define their
reliance on certain specific resources, and quantify their impacts in terms of waste/pollution/emissions
and resource consumption. Measuring the metabolism of cities can support more sound decisions,
minimizing the use and discard of resources by making the urban system more efficient [
22
]. In these
terms, analytical research can provide important information about waste management and prevention
in urban systems [
23
,
24
]. Lee et al. [
25
] identified at least three reasons why it is important to
understand the material flows in cities: “[
. . .
] (i) to provide a baseline for future work; (ii) to identify

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 3 of 19
the significant flows with regards to weight [
. . .
] and value, and (iii) to address how best to tackle the
issues arising with a reduction in the availability of these resources [
. . .
].” However, while it proved
to be a powerful analytical tool, the operationalization and integration of UM into policy-making
and strategic planning has seen increasing efforts only in recent years. For example, the BRIDGE
project (developed under the EU 7th Framework Programme for Research and Innovation) developed
a Decision Support System (DSS) that includes UM elements into a sustainability impact assessment
framework, with the intention to support the plan-making process [
26
]. Despite its limits, identified by
the authors themselves, the DSS was effective in supporting the assessment of planning alternatives
and introducing the UM concept into the planning process. Other researches and projects undertook
the challenge of incorporating “metabolic thinking” (e.g., Galan and Perrotti [
27
]) and UM in policy-
and decision-making [
28
,
29
]. This increasing corpus of researches highlights the promising potential
of the metabolic approach as a planning tool. Furthermore, scholars recommend the combination of
qualitative and quantitative methods [
27
], the development of clear and comprehensible information,
and the involvement of both policymakers and local stakeholders in a participatory decision-making
process [
28
,
30
]. In general, innovative and sustainable strategies for resource and waste management
(including those based on UM and CE) cannot overlook the importance of detailed and high-quality
information (e.g., high-quality information to address sustainable biodiesel production [
31
]). However,
the engagement of different stakeholders/actors in the decision-making process needs also to be
addressed in order to thoroughly support the design of urban strategies for waste prevention and
resource management [28].
This paper contributes to the recent efforts of incorporating UM and CE in policy- and
decision-making processes by providing a methodology that operationalizes and integrates the UM
approach, as well as CE principles, into policy-making and strategic planning, using a creative
combination of well-established methodologies that support and inform decisions. According to UN
Habitat [
32
], urban strategic planning is “a dynamic process, inclusive and participatory, with an eye
on implementation” that “involves an inclusive consultation process for development of a vision,
mission, goal and objectives; setting priorities and strategic directions; and defining action plans,”
seeking the answer to the following questions.
i “Where are we now? (What is the present status, situation or condition of the city?)”
ii “Where do we want to go? (Where would the city like to go or what direction it is taking?)”
iii “How do we get there? (How would the city like to get there?)”
The methodology proposed follows the abovementioned rationale of the urban strategic
planning, trying to overcome the limits of the dominant economic model, as well as those related
to monodisciplinary and sector-by-sector approaches, by building on an integral vision that makes
the best out of different disciplines and tools. The methodology was developed and tested in the
H2020 project “Urban_Wins”, leading to the development of strategic plans for waste prevention and
resource management in eight pilot cities. The project is led by the Municipality of Cremona and
involves 27 EU partners, including the eight pilot municipalities that are: Albano Laziale and Pomezia
(Rome, IT), Turin (IT), Cremona (IT), Bucharest (RO), Sabadell and Manresa (Barcelona, ES), and Leiria
(PT). These municipalities were chosen as relevant to the project because of their heterogeneity, so as
to test the methodology in different urban contexts. In particular, they are different in size, location,
socioeconomic environment, and administrative organization, which are all elements that can influence
both the production/consumption patterns and the policy-making mechanism.
2. Materials and Methods
The methodology proposed is based on the integration of the UM concept in a strategic planning
process for the definition of urban strategic plans for waste prevention and resource management.
It seeks to ensure that our cities will shift towards more sustainable production and consumption
patterns, by focusing on both (i) the planning tools (e.g., quantitative and qualitative analysis, specific

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 4 of 19
technical tools to support decision-makers, etc.) and processes considered in the whole planning
process and (ii) the engagement of stakeholders and participatory approaches that should be carried
out in order to secure the legitimacy, functionality, and endorsement of the plan. The methodology
principles are shared among all the pilot municipalities. However, specific local characteristics that
might influence their metabolism, such as the level of economic development, environmental and
climate factors, as well as social, cultural, and political issues, are implicitly considered in the process,
since this kind of local knowledge is guaranteed by the involvement of local actors and stakeholders.
The strategic plans should follow the path “from the city strategy to the action planning”, in which,
after setting the city priorities and objectives—“the strategic direction”—on the basis of a recognized
urban situation—“the strategic situation”—a set of strategic actions needed to reach each specific
goal are specified—“the strategic action”—[
32
]. In this regard, the strategic plans are organized in
two sections: the first related to the so-called Strategic Planning Framework (SPF), containing the
strategic situation and direction, and the second related to the Local Strategic Action Planning (LSAP),
containing the strategic action. The SPF section aims to guide policy-makers to the definition of a
vision of their city and the identification of the related priorities and objectives. The main tasks of
the SPF are (i) to enhance the use of the UM approach into policy-making, specifically for the waste
prevention and resource management sectors, through the accounting and use of quantitative data on
material flows and the extraction of multiple information on the resource and waste sectors and (ii) to
ensure an active participation of stakeholders in waste strategic planning. The LSAP section is meant
to contribute to the operationalization of the SPF. It is composed of specific measures and actions that
need to be implemented in order to accomplish the city strategy by planning and prioritizing them on
the basis of the city’s main problems and needs.
The following elements are considered in the planning process for the development of the strategic
plans for waste prevention and resource management (graphically presented in Figure 1):
1.
the building of quantitative (i.e., data on material flows) and qualitative knowledge (i.e., existing
policies and strategies affecting the resource/waste sectors within the city) in relation to the
resource consumption and waste production in the urban system;
2.
the definition of the city priorities and related objectives on the basis of the quantitative and
qualitative knowledge;
3.
the environmental and socioeconomic assessment of the current situation related to resource
consumption and waste production within the city through the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response
(DPSIR) analysis, in order to identify potential responses linked to the priorities and objectives;
4.
the Strengths–Weaknesses–Opportunities–Threats (SWOT) analysis in relation to the potential
responses, in order to support the transition from potential responses to measures and actions for
the achievement of the priorities and objectives;
5.
the definition of specific measurable targets according to a time frame, as well as the indicators
aimed at their measuring, in order to monitor the accomplishment of the priorities and objectives;
6.
the final formulation and planning of appropriate measures and actions for the achievement of
the priorities and objectives.
They are organized in subsequent steps, developed in accordance with a participatory process.
Below, after introducing the process for the engagement of the local authorities (i.e., policy-makers)
and stakeholders in the whole planning process, such steps are explained one by one.
The process for the engagement of the local authorities (i.e., policy-makers) and stakeholders in
the whole planning process—i.e., public participation organized in the form of consultation meetings,
working groups, and other kind of interactive activities supporting each one of the abovementioned
steps—is formulated in order to involve them since the first steps of the strategic plan’s definition.
Public participation in urban strategic planning offers better chances for developing solutions that are
sustainable and feasible, and which citizens are willing to implement [
32
] by following a bottom-up
approach where the city strategy is built by decision and policy-makers with the support of the relevant

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 5 of 19
stakeholders and citizens. There is evidence that stakeholders’ participation can enhance the quality
of environment-related decisions by considering more comprehensive information inputs [
33
,
34
].
The meaningfulness of stakeholders’ engagement can be seen, on the one hand, in an ethical perspective
to enhance inclusive decision-making, promote equity, enhance local decision-making, and build
social capital, and, on the other hand, in a strategic management perspective to capture knowledge,
increase ownership of the project by users, reduce conflict, encourage innovation, and facilitate
spin-off partnerships [
35
]. Furthermore, integrating local and scientific knowledge can provide a
more comprehensive understanding of complex and dynamic social and environmental systems and
processes; such knowledge can be used to evaluate the appropriateness of potential technical and local
measures [33].
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
knowledge, increase ownership of the project by users, reduce conflict, encourage innovation, and
facilitate spin-off partnerships [35]. Furthermore, integrating local and scientific knowledge can
provide a more comprehensive understanding of complex and dynamic social and environmental
systems and processes; such knowledge can be used to evaluate the appropriateness of potential
technical and local measures [33].
Figure 1. The various steps of the planning process proposed for the formulation of the strategic plans
(i.e., Strategic Planning Framework (SPF) and Local Strategic Action Planning (LSAP) sections).
In this context, the participatory process in the Urban_WINS project was carried out following
a defined and shared protocol that implicated various meetings, called Face-to-Face Agoras, and
involved both policy-makers and relevant stakeholders (e.g., industry and professional associations,
private and municipal companies, local authorities, citizens, etc.). Such protocol was developed by a
project partner, FCT NOVA—the Faculty of Sciences and Technology of Nova University of Lisbon
—and was aimed at giving arrangements as regards the main organizational and management
Figure 1.
The various steps of the planning process proposed for the formulation of the strategic plans
(i.e., Strategic Planning Framework (SPF) and Local Strategic Action Planning (LSAP) sections).

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 6 of 19
In this context, the participatory process in the Urban_WINS project was carried out following a
defined and shared protocol that implicated various meetings, called Face-to-Face Agoras, and involved
both policy-makers and relevant stakeholders (e.g., industry and professional associations, private
and municipal companies, local authorities, citizens, etc.). Such protocol was developed by a project
partner, FCT NOVA—the Faculty of Sciences and Technology of Nova University of Lisbon —and was
aimed at giving arrangements as regards the main organizational and management contents of the
meetings, providing sufficient flexibility to cities to tailor the activities according to their own situation,
characteristics, and needs. After each Face-to-Face Agora, all the information and suggestions collected
were subsequently explored, verified, and eventually integrated internally by the decision-makers of
the municipal authority.
2.1. Step 1
The building of quantitative and qualitative knowledge in relation to resource consumption and
waste production in the urban system is aimed at providing useful information and data to start the
building of the urban strategy on the basis of a recognized situation—the strategic situation. This is
composed of the analysis of the current policies which insist on the urban area (the so-called qualitative
analysis) and the quantitative analysis of the city’s resource consumption and waste production
through the analysis of material flows.
The analysis of current policies foresees the collection of all the information contained in plans,
documents, reports, etc., that are necessary to build the state-of-the-art of the urban and territorial
strategies and initiatives, which have an effect on resource consumption and waste production within
the urban system. The legislative frameworks considered:
•National: directives determining policies to be implemented in regions and municipalities;
•River Basin—Interregional: river basin sectoral plans;
•Regional: Regional legal provisions, included the ones from autonomous communities;
•Provincial—Metropolitan: provisions on resource consumption, metropolitan plans;
•
Municipal: local activities, programs, action plans, agricultural parks, energy savings initiatives, etc.
The relevant information emerged from such analysis needs to be synthesized in an easy and
communicative way in order to highlight issues, synergies, and problems that need to be addressed
during the development of the strategic plan. This can serve both to avoid redundancies and
overlapping interventions, and to highlight potential links between the existing policies and the
strategic plan. The main information extracted during the analysis is related to the specific objectives
of plans/policies, the stakeholders involved, and the relevant measures implemented or allocated that
have an effect on the resource and waste sectors, as well as their fields of action. Such measures were
then classified according to the following four main categories: waste prevention and management,
development of new sustainable sectors and local economies, rational use of resources—energy, water,
soil, and sustainable mobility—and CO
2
reduction. The latter information aims to make clearer
what are the main fields of action a city currently focuses on (according to the objectives and actions
contained in its current planning tools), allowing to understand in which fields the city should instead
reinforce its strategy.
The quantitative analysis of the city’s resource consumption and waste production patterns
provides to decision-makers, as well as to other stakeholders interested in evaluating and
understanding the complexities of such patterns in a city, consolidated and useful information and
data to build a recognized urban situation. It aimed at giving a better understanding of how the city
consumes and discards its products and resources in order to assess how to prevent, reduce, and reuse
waste, using an UM accounting model. One of the most important UM tools is the MFA [
36
,
37
].
MFA helps decision-makers to understand the metabolism of their city or region, by examining the
materials flowing into it, the stocks and flows within the system, and the materials exchanged with
other systems [
36
]. However, since incorporating MFA results in the planning processes is challenging,

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 7 of 19
there is need to further interpret them before to present the resulting data to decision-makers and
stakeholders [
30
]. When presenting MFA results in a comprehensible manner, decision-makers are
provided with an improved understanding of the functioning of their region or city, allowing them to
prepare for, and react to, present and future material flows and stock issues, also providing a good
basis for comparing a set of scenarios [
36
]. If the system boundaries and the selection of processes and
goods are well known and documented, MFA permits an objective discussion of environmental and
resource/waste policy measures, improving the ability of the actors to define a common platform with
regard to the current situation, and participation in the development of future scenarios for long-term
planning by visualizing the consequences of certain measures at an early stage [
38
]. Zengerling
(2019) [
39
] reported two successful cases in which “data on past, current and predicted future scenarios
of the cities’ carbon and material flows supported informed decision-making in target setting, choice
of measures and indicators,” using, e.g., “dynamic mathematical models to predict and assess different
policy scenarios in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions and work towards zero waste”. Within the
Urban_Wins project, a novel model for the calculation of material flows, called the Urban Metabolism
Analyst (UMAn) model, was proposed in order to inform decision-making with quantitative results.
This model was already used to study material flows and inform local decisions in relation to a city’s
strategic planning in waste management [
40
]. Such a model allows standard detailed accounting of
material flows at the urban level [
41
], identifying sectors, materials, and products that mainly affect
the urban system. However, in the Urban_WINS project, the use of quantitative results in the planning
process was not tested in a real case study because of a delay in the processing of the data (more details
on this are provided in the Results). Nevertheless, it is proven that incorporating quantitative data
on material flows in a planning process is very useful and can support decision-making in strategic
planning, as evidenced in other case studies (e.g., Zhang et al. [
30
], Zengerling [
39
]), for example,
supporting the formulation of strategies and objectives on the basis of the outcomes of the metabolic
assessment [30].
2.2. Step 2
The definition of the city priorities and related objectives—the strategic direction—on the basis of
the quantitative and qualitative knowledge—the strategic situation—is formulated in order to respond
to/improve the current situation, emerged in the above-mentioned analysis. A priority can be defined
as the medium/long term strategy that a municipality is determined to reach, which is built to address
the main problems and needs related to/causing the priority. Accordingly, an objective can be defined
as the measurable target to be achieved in order to reach the identified priority (i.e., targets relate to
those subsequent paths that a municipality needs to undertake in order to achieve the strategy). In this
context, more objectives can compete simultaneously for the achievement of a priority.
The first formulation of city priorities and objectives is generally done by decision- and
policy-makers on the basis of the strategic situation resulting from the previous analysis. Subsequently,
the priorities and objectives, together with the reasons that led to their formulation, are explored
and assessed with all the relevant stakeholders and citizens engaged in the participatory process,
by using a set of decision support tools (i.e., DPSIR and SWOT, see Steps 3 and 4 for detailed
descriptions). During this phase, meetings with the stakeholders are organized in a cooperative
and social learning-oriented environment (e.g., workshops, interactive sessions, etc.) aimed at creating
a shared vision, as well as at promoting a dialogue that can help to increase awareness, change attitudes,
and affect behaviors. During such meetings, priorities and objectives may be subject to adjustments
and new proposals, thanks to the new information inputs.
2.3. Step 3
The environmental and socioeconomic assessment of the current situation in terms of social and
environmental issues (related to resource consumption and waste production), which generated the
need to set priorities and objectives, is carried out in order to set out potential responses through the

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 8 of 19
Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework. The usefulness of the DPSIR framework
in the urban planning practice is due to its focus in supporting the design of the relationship among
society, activities, and urban environment; carrying out the consequences of the choices; and building
knowledge on environmental impacts and problems [
29
]. Furthermore, some authors [
29
,
42
,
43
]
argue that the DPSIR framework can be successfully combined with other problem structuring
methods (e.g., in the Urban_WINS case with the SWOT analysis, see Step 4 for a detailed description)
rather than using one single method, and that, especially if applied in a participatory and systemic
multimethodology, this helps to create outcomes of value to local populations. The DPSIR framework
was developed by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development [
44
] and the European
Environment Agency [
45
], and it is identified as a “causal framework for describing the interactions
between society and the environment” [
46
]. It is an adaptive management tool used to analyze
environmental problems by establishing cause–effect relations between anthropogenic activities
and their environmental and socioeconomic consequences [
47
], in a policy-meaningful way [
48
].
According to the DPSIR terminology, social and economic developments (Driving Forces, D) exert
Pressures (P) on the environment and, as a consequence, the State (S) of the environment changes.
This leads to Impacts (I) on ecosystems, human health, and society, which may cause a societal
Response (R) that feeds back on Driving Forces, on State, or on Impacts through various mitigation,
adaptation, or curative measures [
48
–
50
]. Moreover, combining the DPSIR framework with other
methods could improve its results [47,51–53].
In the Urban_Wins project, the process of analysis of the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response
was adapted by CTM (FundacióCTM Centre Tecnològic, a partner of the project) according to the
participatory process, and it supported the definition of potential responses taking into account the
relationships occurring among society, activities, and the related environmental impacts. In particular,
after the analysis of the Driving Forces, Pressures, State, and Impacts, performed by the policy-makers
of the municipality together with the stakeholders, a set of responses (measures of interventions,
strategic actions, and/or policies) for waste prevention and resource management were formulated in
order to modify determinants (prevention approach), reduce pressures (prevention and management
approaches), and mitigate changes in the state of the environment and impacts or adapt to them
(management approach).
2.4. Step 4
After the formulation of the set of responses, a SWOT analysis is needed to further discuss,
approve, and specify the potential responses according to its results. SWOT is one of the most
frequently used methods by practitioners; it was already successfully used within a participatory
process in the waste management sector [
54
,
55
]. Yuan (2013) [
56
] reported several case studies in which
the SWOT analysis was used in strategic planning, arguing that it is evidently demonstrated that the
SWOT is one of the best tools for investigating problems from a strategic perspective. In fact, SWOT is
a strategic planning technique used to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
(SWOTs) of project planning. It is designed to be used in the preliminary stages of decision-making
on the one hand, and as a precursor to strategic management planning on the other hand. Its main
purpose in the planning process is to obtain decision support, usable for choosing the strategy to
be followed [
54
]. Based on the SWOTs identified during the analysis of the potential responses,
recommendations for improving the actual situation come out. These recommendations are then used
to support the formulation of appropriate measures and actions as a response to the current situation
of the city.
2.5. Step 5
Specific measurable targets according to a time frame, as well as the indicators aimed at their
measuring, are defined in order to identify a series of time frames to monitor the various steps for
the accomplishment of the objectives and priorities through specific actions and measures (see the

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 9 of 19
Step 6 for the detailed description). In the Urban_WINS project, specific measurable targets and
related indicators were established in each pilot city for each objective identified. Such indicators were
selected from a list specifically prepared for the project purpose. The list included a wide range of
indicators coming from various sources (i.e., literature on waste prevention and management, CE,
and UM, as well as from the EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard [
57
]). Pilot cities, under the guidance
of the technical partners, first chose the most appropriate indicator(s) for each one of their objectives
and, second, set the related targets to be measured through the selected indicator(s). In particular,
three specific targets were fixed according to a specific timeline: one concerning a short-term period (up
to 1–2 year/s), another concerning a medium-term period (from 2 to 5 years), and the last concerning a
long-term period (more than 5 years). This step is useful to create the basis for the further setting up of
a monitoring program in order to monitor how the planned actions and measures are contributing to
the achievement of the related objectives, i.e., if the fixed targets are reliable and attainable through
the implementation of the planned actions and measures or something needs to be adjusted and/or
changed during the implementation phase. A similar approach was carried out within the BRIDGE
project, which defined a set of indicators to be used for the assessment of planning alternatives.
2.6. Step 6
The final step regards the formulation and planning of appropriate measures and actions within
the LSAP section in order to accomplish the objectives and priorities identified in the SPF section.
In doing so, strategies are converted into practical programs or activities for implementation starting
from the information collected during the analysis phases (i.e., potential responses from the DPSIR
framework and additional information and recommendations from the SWOT analysis). Like in
the other phases, stakeholders need to take jointly part into the decision-making process in order
to minimize or avoid conflicts and oppositions. Action planning identifies the key undertakings in
consultation with stakeholders while focusing on resources and partnerships [
58
]. The planning of
measures and actions shall be organized in relation to the priorities and objectives (an action could
accomplish one or more objectives, which targets are measured through the selected indicators as
described in Step 5) and, based on the Urban_WINS experience and according to [
58
], should consider
(at least)
•the expected results and the time horizon of their implementation;
•the responsible body/department of the municipal authority for their implementation;
•the actors to be involved and the stakeholders affected by their implementation;
•the human and financial resources to be allocated to each measure/action; and
•
the monitoring phase to be put in place in order to track their state of advancement and potential
critical issues that may arise during their implementation.
3. Results
Following the above methodology, each pilot city developed its own strategic plan for waste
prevention and resource management. A total of eight strategic plans were thus implemented,
composed of all the elements explained in the steps from 1 to 6. The proposed planning process
make use of both qualitative (e.g., analysis of current policies, DPSIR, and SWOT analysis) and
quantitative analysis/methods (e.g., MFA, indicators, and targets). Qualitative ones were intended to
be used to gain an understanding of underlying reasons, perceptions, opinions, and motivations for
the development of the strategic plans, as well as to provide insights into the problems of the waste
and resource management sector. Quantitative ones were intended to be used to quantify the problems
by way of generating numerical data that can be measurable, as well as to formulate and monitor
appropriate pathways deployed as a response to such problems through measurable data and/or
usable statistics. In the next paragraphs, after presenting some findings on the participatory process,
the main results are presented for each one of the six steps. In each city, the implementation of the

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 10 of 19
strategic plan was carried out in parallel and with the support of the participatory process organized
through various meetings (the so-called Face-to-Face Agoras). Figure 2resumes the various steps
of the participatory process that were carried out in each city, which led to the joint formulation of
priorities, objectives, and actions that were included in the strategic plan.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Figure 2. The various steps of the planning process developed in accordance with the participatory
process (i.e., Face-to-Face Agoras).
The organization of such meetings resulted in different levels of stakeholders’ involvement from
one city to another. Table 1 shows the number of different stakeholders (one person is counted only
once also if he/she participated in more than one meeting) engaged during the participatory process
up to the formulation of the actions.
Table 1. Number of stakeholders engaged during planning process within the Face-to-Face Agoras
in each city.
City Stakeholders Engaged
Albano Laziale 70
Bucharest 155
Cremona 83
Leiria 173
Manresa 91
Pomezia 64
Sabadell 48
Torino 68
TOTAL 752
Cities with more stakeholders engaged are Leiria (173) and Bucharest (155), followed by
Manresa (91) and Cremona (83). On the contrary, cities with fewer stakeholders engaged are Sabadell
(48), Pomezia (64), Torino (68), and Albano Laziale (70).
3.1. Step 1
As regards the qualitative and quantitative knowledge, the results are explained only for the
former, since it was not possible to apply and inform the planning process with the quantitative
results coming from the UMAn model.
Concerning the qualitative analysis elaborated for each city, Table 2 shows the number of the
existing policy-related measures having an effect on the resource and waste sectors that are
implemented or allocated in the eight pilot cities, classified according to the four categories identified
for the fields of action (see Step 1 in Materials and Methods).
Figure 2.
The various steps of the planning process developed in accordance with the participatory
process (i.e., Face-to-Face Agoras).
The organization of such meetings resulted in different levels of stakeholders’ involvement from
one city to another. Table 1shows the number of different stakeholders (one person is counted only
once also if he/she participated in more than one meeting) engaged during the participatory process
up to the formulation of the actions.
Table 1.
Number of stakeholders engaged during planning process within the Face-to-Face Agoras in
each city.
City Stakeholders Engaged
Albano Laziale 70
Bucharest 155
Cremona 83
Leiria 173
Manresa 91
Pomezia 64
Sabadell 48
Torino 68
TOTAL 752
Cities with more stakeholders engaged are Leiria (173) and Bucharest (155), followed by Manresa
(91) and Cremona (83). On the contrary, cities with fewer stakeholders engaged are Sabadell (48),
Pomezia (64), Torino (68), and Albano Laziale (70).
3.1. Step 1
As regards the qualitative and quantitative knowledge, the results are explained only for the
former, since it was not possible to apply and inform the planning process with the quantitative results
coming from the UMAn model.

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 11 of 19
Concerning the qualitative analysis elaborated for each city, Table 2shows the number of
the existing policy-related measures having an effect on the resource and waste sectors that are
implemented or allocated in the eight pilot cities, classified according to the four categories identified
for the fields of action (see Step 1 in Materials and Methods).
Table 2.
Classification of the existing policy-related measures having an effect on the resource and
waste sectors that are implemented or allocated in the eight pilot cities, according to four categories.
City
Rational Use of
Resources—Energy,
Soil, and Water
Sustainable
Mobility and CO2
Reduction
Development of New
Sustainable Sectors
and Local Economies
Waste Prevention
and Management TOTAL
Albano Laziale 14 5 0 7 26
Bucharest 4 5 3 11 23
Cremona 8 5 1 6 20
Leiria 19 11 3 17 50
Manresa 12 8 18 3 41
Pomezia 18 5 5 5 33
Sabadell 17 6 6 2 31
Torino 17 21 6 10 54
TOTAL 109 66 42 61 278
The city with the highest number of existing policy-related measures having an effect on the
resource and waste sectors is Torino (54), closely followed by Leiria (50). The city with the lowest
number is Cremona (20), closely followed by Bucharest (23) and Albano Laziale (26). The field of action
with the highest amount of existing measures is the “rational use of resources—energy, soil, and water”
(109), while the field of action with the lowest amount is the “development of new sustainable sectors
and local economies” (42). “Sustainable mobility and CO
2
reduction” and “Waste prevention and
management” have similar results (66 and 61, respectively).
3.2. Step 2
The definition of city priorities and related objectives resulted in a total of 31 priorities and
91 objectives, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Number of priorities and objectives defined in each city.
City Priorities Objectives
Albano Laziale 3 5
Bucharest 3 9
Cremona 4 13
Leiria 5 18
Manresa 5 22
Pomezia 3 8
Sabadell 4 12
Torino 4 4
TOTAL 31 91
While the number of priorities is similar among all the cities (from three to five), the number of
objectives is more diverse, with a minimum of four objectives in Torino and a maximum of 22 objectives
in Manresa.
According to the issues addressed by the strategies (i.e., priorities and objectives) defined in
the eight pilot cities, some major topics emerged, such as circular economy, waste management,
waste prevention, recycling of materials/products, collection of waste, food waste, and reduction
of packaging.

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 12 of 19
3.3. Step 3 and Step 4
The implementation of the DPSIR framework led to the definition of potential responses linked to
the priorities and objectives that were subsequently explored, assessed, and refined using the SWOT
analysis, in order to come out with additional information and recommendations for improving the
actual situation. Table 4shows the number of potential responses came out and analyzed during
these phases.
Table 4.
Number of potential responses came out from the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response
(DPSIR) framework in each city.
City Potential Responses from the DPSIR
Albano Laziale 10
Bucharest 24
Cremona 18
Leiria 39
Manresa 34
Pomezia 28
Sabadell 42
Torino 43
TOTAL 238
The city with the highest number of potential responses is Torino (43), closely followed by Sabadell
(43) and Leiria (39). The city with the lowest number is Albano Laziale (10), followed by Cremona (18).
3.4. Step 5
The definition of the targets (in terms of expected results) and related indicators to measure their
accomplishment over time was performed by each city by selecting one or more (usually, no more than
2 or 3) quantitative/performance indicators, and by establishing the target value to be achieved in
the short, medium, and long-term for each objective (e.g., the amount in tons, or the percentage over
the total, of the daily separate waste collected, as expected after one year, two years, and five years
from the starting of a new policy/program on separate waste collection). Furthermore, qualitative
indicators were also included in order to monitor more qualitative results (e.g., citizens’ satisfaction
after one year, two years, and five years from the starting of an intervention measure).
3.5. Step 6
Table 5shows the number of measures and actions that were defined and included in the strategic
plan of each city to accomplish the city strategy, i.e., objectives and priorities.
Table 5. Number of measures and actions defined and included in the strategic plan of each city.
City Measures and Actions Included in the Strategic Plan
Albano Laziale 8
Bucharest 9
Cremona 19
Leiria 13
Manresa 24
Pomezia 10
Sabadell 13
Torino 8
TOTAL 104
Manresa has the highest number of actions in its strategic plan (24), while Albano Laziale and
Torino have the lowest number (8).

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 13 of 19
Figure 3shows, for each one of the pilot cities, both the existing measures implemented or
allocated within the current policies (see also Table 1) and the new planned measures defined within
the eight strategic plans. This allows a visual and immediate comparison of the relevance (in terms of
magnitude and number) between the existing and the new planned measures and actions. It helps
to understand how (i.e., in which sectors and with which relevance) the strategic plans developed
within the Urban_WINS project could contribute/reinforce the city strategy on waste prevention and
resource management.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19
Sustainability 2019, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
the eight strategic plans. This allows a visual and immediate comparison of the relevance (in terms
of magnitude and number) between the existing and the new planned measures and actions. It helps
to understand how (i.e., in which sectors and with which relevance) the strategic plans developed
within the Urban_WINS project could contribute/reinforce the city strategy on waste prevention and
resource management.
Figure 3. Classification of (i) the existing measures implemented or allocated within the current
policies in the eight pilot cities that have an effect on resource consumption and waste production,
and (ii) the new planned measures defined within the strategic plans, according to the four main
categories identified: rational use of resources—energy, soil, and water; sustainable mobility and CO2
reduction; development of new sustainable sectors and local economies; and waste prevention and
management. Circles represent an approximate proportion of the existing measures classified by the
four categories. The bigger and darker is the circle, the greater is the number of the existing measures
related to that category. Alongside the circles, numbers represent the number (as an increased
quantity) of the new planned measures defined within the strategic plans.
4. Discussion
UM is considered as a potential means for analyzing and enhancing the sustainability of the
resource and waste management sectors at the city or regional scale. From the Urban_WINS
experience, the relation between UM and urban planning practices and policy frameworks can be
understood under two important aspects: (i) as a theoretical approach and way of thinking that assists
policy and decision-makers when implementing sustainable measures for their cities (in this case, to
better manage resources while preventing waste) and (ii) as a powerful tool to analyze and account
material flows for the production of analytical data that supports and orientates the formulation of
policies. The methodology developed within the eight pilot cities of the project highlighted very well
how these two aspects could be applied and be reinforced from each other, even if it was not possible
to test the use of the data coming from material flow accounting in the real planning process. In fact,
since data on material flows took more time and effort, and collection and processing were more
Figure 3.
Classification of (i) the existing measures implemented or allocated within the current policies
in the eight pilot cities that have an effect on resource consumption and waste production, and (ii)
the new planned measures defined within the strategic plans, according to the four main categories
identified: rational use of resources—energy, soil, and water; sustainable mobility and CO
2
reduction;
development of new sustainable sectors and local economies; and waste prevention and management.
Circles represent an approximate proportion of the existing measures classified by the four categories.
The bigger and darker is the circle, the greater is the number of the existing measures related to that
category. Alongside the circles, numbers represent the number (as an increased quantity) of the new
planned measures defined within the strategic plans.
4. Discussion
UM is considered as a potential means for analyzing and enhancing the sustainability of the
resource and waste management sectors at the city or regional scale. From the Urban_WINS experience,
the relation between UM and urban planning practices and policy frameworks can be understood
under two important aspects: (i) as a theoretical approach and way of thinking that assists policy
and decision-makers when implementing sustainable measures for their cities (in this case, to better
manage resources while preventing waste) and (ii) as a powerful tool to analyze and account material
flows for the production of analytical data that supports and orientates the formulation of policies.
The methodology developed within the eight pilot cities of the project highlighted very well how these

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 14 of 19
two aspects could be applied and be reinforced from each other, even if it was not possible to test the
use of the data coming from material flow accounting in the real planning process. In fact, since data
on material flows took more time and effort, and collection and processing were more challenging than
expected, the results came out too late to be used for feeding the planning process with quantitative
data. However, cities are provided at the end of this project with such data and, according to its usability,
they can use them for further applications in relation to the implementation of the measures and actions
included in their strategic plans (e.g., for their prioritization and/or monitoring). The methodology
proved to be innovative in combining tools, expertise, and processes that are usually applied separately
in the decision-making process, as well as operational in introducing metabolic thinking within both
the policy framework and the society’s awareness through the engagement of decision-makers and
stakeholders. Based on the Uban_WINS experience, the participation of the municipality offices relating
to different sectors/departments (e.g., Environment, Energy, Building, Urban planning, Mobility, Smart
City Initiatives, Social affairs, etc.) and administrative levels (councilors, officers, technicians, internal
and/or external experts, etc.) is crucial to ensure a constructive discussion by involving all issues
having some kind of interrelation with the resource and waste sectors, and, as a consequence, to have
a more comprehensive setting of responses.
In the eight case studies, the implementation of the methodology resulted in the identification of
various strategies, consisting of several priorities, objectives, and actions, which, although they differ
in typology and topic, are all aimed at enhancing the sustainability of the resource management and
waste prevention sectors. Starting from the stakeholders’ experience and territorial knowledge, it was
possible from the beginning to characterize each strategic framework without imposing any technical
or analytical vision, using a top-down logic [
59
]. Building informed policies by incorporating the
knowledge and preferences of stakeholders and decision-makers is a pretty widespread practice used
when orienting sustainable development (e.g., Gissi et al. [
60
]). In this way, it was possible to introduce
into the political arena a real participative discussion focused on sustainability, including citizens’
perception and preferences about different (but connected) topics: resources consumption, waste
prevention and reduction, waste management, sustainable practices and lifestyles, and city livability.
The topics addressed by the actions and measures defined within the eight strategic plans show
that there is a particular sensitivity in addressing specific topics (more than the others) related to the
waste and resource management sectors. These topics are related especially to several waste issues
(e.g., management, prevention, collection, reduction, and recycling), with a focus on food wastage,
and to the CE concept (e.g., reuse of materials and products). For this reason, the first two fields
of action in terms of relevance (i.e., number of new planned actions classified into each one of the
four main categories) are (i) waste prevention and management, mainly related to the waste issues,
and (ii) development of new sustainable sectors and local economies, mainly related to the CE concept.
It should be noted that the existing policies within the eight pilot cities, in general, are mainly focused
on the remaining two fields of action: (i) rational use of resources—energy, water, and soil; and (ii)
sustainable mobility and CO
2
reduction. This means that the measures defined within the eight
strategic plans are broadly focused—with a very few exceptions—on sectors where there is actually
less relevant attention in the policy framework, thus leading to a reinforcement of the city strategy on
these lacking sectors.
The eight pilot cities, which come from different geographical, physical, and cultural contexts,
gained different results during the planning process. For example, as regards the participatory process,
some cities (e.g., Leiria and Bucharest) were able to involve a higher number of stakeholders than others
(e.g., Sabadell and Pomezia). These differences may be caused (in some cases), e.g., by the different size
of the cities, the different sensitivity to/degree of willingness to address the problem of citizens, and/or
the effort put in place by the municipal authority for their engagement. As regards the number of
priorities, objectives, and actions included in the strategic plans, some cities preferred to have them in a
reduced number and others not. This may depend by the fact that some cities (e.g., Torino) already had
a wide range of measures implemented or allocated into their current policies, while others considered

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 15 of 19
that the issues related to resource management and waste and prevention were still poorly addressed
in their policy framework. Again, some of them may have preferred to have less but broader measures
and others to have more specific and fragmented ones in a larger number. Given such first insights,
all these aspects should be further investigated in order to better understand which are the factors that
more influenced such differences.
Although the methodology seems very complicated at first sight, its structure is very flexible and
guaranteed to reach the ultimate results overcoming potential bottlenecks (e.g., avoiding potential
opposition). On the other hand, the entire process is also time consuming and resource demanding.
Possible obstacles to entirely implement the methodology can be the lack of available information
on resource consumption and waste production at the city level (as experienced in the Urban_WINS
project), the lack of expertise of practitioners within the local authority for the application of specific
steps of the methodology, and difficulties that may occur in the identification and engagement of the
relevant stakeholders. Municipalities might therefore need to make additional efforts to collect data
at the local level for the analysis of material flows, and to train the technicians responsible for the
implementation of the planning process (as regards both the application of the most technical steps and
the management of the various facets of public participation. Furthermore, as regards the collection of
data that can be used to analyze the cities’ material flows (but this is also valid at a broader scale), it is
necessary to mention the fact that there is need to standardize the way such data are collected, in order
to simplify their accounting with MFA and make them more comparable across different geographical
and temporal scales.
5. Conclusions
High rates of resource consumption and waste production are problems that need great attention;
this is particularly true in urban areas in which resource consumption and waste generation are
concentrated. The rise (or the rehashing) of approaches such as CE and UM in the last years
demonstrates the urgency of the issue. Despite the increasing number of CE practices and UM
researches worldwide, the operationalization and the inclusion of such approaches in policy- and
decision-making processes have seen a significant progress only in recent years. Local authorities still
need comprehensive guidelines that can help them to set up a proper decision-making process that
incorporates metabolic thinking. This article is an attempt to contribute to this effort by proposing a
methodology that can support step-by-step a municipality to operationalize UM and CE principles.
The methodology developed—and tested—tries to overcome the “take, make, and dispose” dominant
economic model in the resource and waste management sectors and recognizes, as a key component
of the UM approach, the reformation of social processes and practices in order to shape the cities’
consumption patterns. The proposed methodology adopts a participatory approach along the entire
process, supporting the municipality to move from a “strategic situation” towards a “strategic direction”
through “strategic actions” [
30
] by involving policy-makers and local stakeholders. The process
is composed of six steps that combine different analytical and planning tools (e.g., MFA, policy
analysis, DPSIR, SWOT, definition of priorities, objectives, and actions, as well as targets and indicators
for monitoring purposes). The methodology was tested in eight municipalities involved in the
Urban_Wins project and led to the development of eight strategic plans for waste prevention and
resource management, one for each city.
Although the level of stakeholders’ involvement differed considerably from one city to another,
the participation and the opportunity of dialogue between policy-makers and different stakeholders
proved to be essential to legitimize the process, enrich the level of information, and raise awareness
on UM and CE concepts. As already pointed out, the application of the MFA in the planning
process showed big difficulties and constraints. As already noted by other researches, this happens
particularly for the (un)availability of high-quality local data and the time required for their elaboration,
which is often not compatible with the timing of projects and policy-making processes. However,
the application of the DPSIR and SWOT analysis, together with the metabolic thinking approach

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 16 of 19
applied in the participatory process, guaranteed the transition from priorities and objectives to
concrete and appropriate measures and actions to deal with the challenges posed by the actual cities’
consumption patterns. Despite the lack of quantitative data from the MFA, the entire process was
therefore able to incorporate the UM approach in a strategic planning process, allowing policy-makers
and stakeholders to think about and address the reshaping of cities’ material flows, hence making
decisions based on such an approach. In summary, the implementation of the methodology was
successful in the definition of measures really aimed at (re)shaping the metabolism of cities, as well as
in communication and engagement aspects that are fundamental to raise awareness among citizens
and decision-makers.
Author Contributions:
All the authors collaborated in the definition and testing of the methodology developed
in the Urban_WINS project and explained in this paper. D.L. contributed to the writing of the paragraphs
“Methodology and Materials” and “Results”. M.D.F. contributed to the writing of the paragraph “Introduction”.
G.L. contributed to the writing of the paragraph “Discussion”. F.M. supervised the whole work. All the authors
collaborated to the writing of the final paragraph “Conclusions”.
Funding:
The project “Urban_Wins. Innovative strategic plans for urban waste reduction and management”
received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the
grant No 690047. The sole responsibility for any error or omissions lies with the authors. The content does not
necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission. The European Commission is also not responsible for
any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank all the partners of the Urban_WINS project. The authors also
would like to thank Maurizio Pioletti and Giacomo Cazzola for their assistance in the initial stages of this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Waste Statistics—Statistics Explained. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
index.php/Waste_statistics#Total_waste_generation (accessed on 30 March 2019).
2.
Bulkeley, H.; Gregson, N. Crossing the threshold: Municipal waste policy and household waste generation.
Environ. Plan. A 2009,41, 929–945. [CrossRef]
3.
Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. Circular economy: State-of-the-art, promises and expectations. A review.
In Working Papers in Transport, Tourism, Information Technology and Microdata Analysis; Dalarna University:
Falun, Sweden, 2014; p. 39.
4.
Ness, D. Sustainable urban infrastructure in China: Towards a Factor 10 improvement in resource
productivity through integrated infrastructure systems. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2008,15, 288–301.
5.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Towards the Circular Economy Vol. 1: An Economic and Business
Rationale for an Accelerated Transition; Ellen Macarthur Foundation: Cowes, UK, 2012; Available
online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-
Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy- vol.1.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2019).
6.
Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017,127, 221–232. [CrossRef]
7.
Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A new sustainability
paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017,143, 757–768. [CrossRef]
8.
Bocken, N.M.; Ritala, P.; Huotari, P. The circular economy: Exploring the introduction of the concept among
S&P 500 firms. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017,21, 487–490. [CrossRef]
9.
Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ.
2018
,
143, 37–46. [CrossRef]
10.
Kennedy, C.A.; Cuddihy, J.; Engel Yan, J. The changing metabolism of cities. J. Ind. Ecol.
2007
,11, 43–59.
[CrossRef]
11.
Cui, X. How can cities support sustainability: A bibliometric analysis of urban metabolism. Ecol. Indic.
2018
,
93, 704–717. [CrossRef]
12.
Marin, J.; De Meulder, B. Urban landscape design exercises in urban metabolism: Reconnecting with Central
Limburg’s regenerative resource landscape. J. Landsc. Archit. 2018,13, 36–49. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 17 of 19
13.
Voskamp, I.M.; Stremke, S.; Spiller, M.; Perrotti, D.; van der Hoek, J.P.; Rijnaarts, H.H. Enhanced performance
of the Eurostat method for comprehensive assessment of urban metabolism: A material flow analysis of
Amsterdam. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017,21, 887–902. [CrossRef]
14.
Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A. How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic
literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,178, 703–722. [CrossRef]
15.
Niza, S.; Rosado, L.; Ferrao, P. Urban metabolism: Methodological advances in urban material flow
accounting based on the Lisbon case study. J. Ind. Ecol. 2009,13, 384–405. [CrossRef]
16.
Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Chen, B. Comprehensive evaluation of the structural characteristics of an urban metabolic
system: Model development and a case study of Beijing. Ecol. Model. 2013,252, 106–113. [CrossRef]
17.
Hoekman, P.; von Blottnitz, H. Cape Town’s metabolism: Insights from a material flow analysis. J. Ind. Ecol.
2017,21, 1237–1249. [CrossRef]
18.
Li, Y.; Beeton, R.J.S.; Halog, A.; Sigler, T. Evaluating urban sustainability potential based on material flow
analysis of inputs and outputs: A case study in Jinchang City, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2016
,110,
87–98. [CrossRef]
19.
Thomson, G.; Newman, P. Urban fabrics and urban metabolism–from sustainable to regenerative cities.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018,132, 218–229. [CrossRef]
20.
Wang, Y.; Chen, P.C.; Ma, H.W.; Cheng, K.L.; Chang, C.Y. Socio-economic metabolism of urban construction
materials: A case study of the Taipei metropolitan area. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2018
,128, 563–571. [CrossRef]
21.
Arora, M.; Raspall, F.; Cheah, L.; Silva, A. Residential building material stocks and component-level
circularity: The case of Singapore. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,216, 239–248. [CrossRef]
22.
Rapoport, E. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Urban Metabolism. A Review of the Literature. UCL
Environmental Institute Working Paper. Development Planning Unit. 2011. Available online: http://www.
wholesem.ac.uk/bartlett/dpu/urban-metabolism/project-outputs/UM_Lit_Review_final.pdf (accessed
on 22 December 2018).
23.
Sahely, H.R.; Dudding, S.; Kennedy, C.A. Estimating the urban metabolism of Canadian cities: Greater
Toronto Area case study. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2003,30, 468–483. [CrossRef]
24.
Turner, D.A.; Williams, I.D.; Kemp, S. Combined material flow analysis and life cycle assessment as a support
tool for solid waste management decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,129, 234–248. [CrossRef]
25.
Lee, S.E.; Quinn, A.D.; Rogers, C.D. Advancing city sustainability via its systems of flows: The urban
metabolism of Birmingham and its hinterland. Sustainability 2016,8, 220. [CrossRef]
26.
González, A.; Donnelly, A.; Jones, M.; Chrysoulakis, N.; Lopes, M. A decision-support system for sustainable
urban metabolism in Europe. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013,38, 109–119. [CrossRef]
27.
Galan, J.; Perrotti, D. Incorporating metabolic thinking into regional planning: The case of the Sierra
Calderona strategic plan. Urban Plan. 2019,4, 152–171. [CrossRef]
28.
Chofre, I.L.; Gielen, E.; Jiménez, J.S.P. Approach to urban metabolism of Almassora municipality, Spain, as a
tool for creating a sustainable city. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2018,179, 209–219.
29.
Ioppolo, G.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Shi, L.; Yigitcanlar, T. Integrating strategic environmental assessment
and material flow accounting: A novel approach for moving towards sustainable urban futures. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 2018. [CrossRef]
30.
Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Yu, X. Urban metabolism: A review of current knowledge and directions for future
study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015,49, 11247–11263. [CrossRef]
31.
Gissi, E.; Gaglio, M.; Aschonitis, V.G.; Fano, E.A.; Reho, M. Soil-related ecosystem services trade-off analysis
for sustainable biodiesel production. Biomass Bioenergy 2018,114, 83–99. [CrossRef]
32.
UN Habitat. Inclusive and Sustainable Urban Planning: A Guide for Municipalities Vol. 1; UNHABITAT, United
Nation Human Settlements Programme, UNON Publishing Service Section: Nairobi, Kenya, 2007.
33.
Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv.
2008,141, 2417–2431. [CrossRef]
34.
Musco, F. Policy Design for Sustainable Integrated Planning: From Local Agenda 21 to Climate Protection.
In Local Governments and Climate Change—Sustainable Energy Planning and Implementation in Small and Medium
Sized Communities; van Staden, M., Musco, F., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 59–76.
35.
Mathur, V.N.; Price, A.D.F.; Austin, S. Conceptualizing stakeholder engagement in the context of
sustainability and its assessment. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008,26, 601–609. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 18 of 19
36.
Hendriks, C.; Obernosterer, R.; Müller, D.; Kytzia, S.; Baccini, P.; Brunner, P.H. Material Flow Analysis: A tool
to support environmental policy decision making. Case-studies on the city of Vienna and the Swiss lowlands.
Local Environ. Int. J. Justice Sustain. 2000,5, 311–328. [CrossRef]
37.
Zhang, Y. Urban metabolism: A review of research methodologies. Environ. Pollut.
2013
,178, 463–473.
[CrossRef]
38.
Brunner, P.H.; Baccini, P.; Deistler, M.; Lahner, T.; Lohm, U.; Obernosterer, R.; van der Voet, E. Materials
Accounting as a Tool for Decision Making in Environmental Policy (Mac TEmPo). In Fourth European
Commission Programme for Environment and Climate, Research Area III, Economic and Social Aspects of the
Environment; Summary Report; ENV-CT96–0230; Institute for Water Quality and Waste Management,
Vienna University of Technology: Vienna, Austria, 2018; Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/
publications/5166/51667541-6_en.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2018).
39.
Zengerling, C. Governing the City of Flows: How Urban Metabolism Approaches May Strengthen
Accountability in Strategic Planning. Urban Plan. 2019,4, 187–199. [CrossRef]
40.
Rosado, L.; Niza, S.; Ferrão, P. A Material Flow Accounting Case Study of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area
using the Urban Metabolism Analyst Model. J. Ind. Ecol. 2014,18, 84–101. [CrossRef]
41.
Rosado, L.; Kalmykova, Y.; Patrício, J. Urban metabolism profiles. An empirical analysis of the material flow
characteristics of three metropolitan areas in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,126, 206–217. [CrossRef]
42.
Bell, S. DPSIR = A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the “Imagine” approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
2012,222, 350–360. [CrossRef]
43.
Mingers, J.; Rosenhead, J. Problem structuring methods in action. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
2004
,152, 530–554.
[CrossRef]
44.
OECD. OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews: A Synthesis Report by the
Group on the State of the Environment. In Environment Monographs n. 83, Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development; OECD: Paris, France, 1993; Available online: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/
publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=OCDE/GD(93)179&docLanguage=En (accessed on 18 October 2018).
45.
European Environment Agency (EEA). Europe’s Environment: The Dobris Assessment; State of the environment
report No. 1; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1995.
46.
European Environment Agency (EEA). EEA Glossary. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/
glossary/eea-glossary/dpsir (accessed on 18 October 2018).
47.
Gari, S.R.; Newton, A.; Icely, J.D. A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an
emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015,103, 63–77. [CrossRef]
48.
Maxim, L.; Spangenberg, J.H.; O’Connor, M. An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework.
Ecol. Econ. 2009,69, 12–23. [CrossRef]
49.
Smeets, E.; Weterings, R. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview; Technical report No. 25; European
Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999; Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/TEC25 (accessed on 19 October 2018).
50.
Gabrielsen, P.; Bosch, P. Internal Working Paper Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in
Reporting; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003; Available online:
http://www.brahmatwinn.uni-jena.de/fileadmin/Geoinformatik/projekte/brahmatwinn/Workshops/
FEEM/Indicators/EEA_Working_paper_DPSIR.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2018).
51.
Bidone, E.D.; Lacerda, L.D. The use of DPSIR framework to evaluate sustainability in coastal areas. Case
study: Guanabara Bay basin, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2004,4, 5–6. [CrossRef]
52.
Caeiro, S.; Mourão, I.; Costa, M.H.; Painho, M.; Ramos, T.B.; Sousa, S. Application of the DPSIR model
to the Sado Estuary in a GIS context e social and Economical Pressures. In Proceedings of the 7th AGILE
Conference on Geographic Information Science, Heraklion, Crete, 29 April—1 May 2004.
53.
Karageorgis, A.P.; Kapsimalis, V.; Kontogianni, M.; Skourtos, M.; Kerry, R.; Wimsalomons, T. Impact of
100-year human interventions on the deltaic coastal zone of the inner Thermaikos Gulf (Greece): A DPSIR
framework analysis. Environ. Manag. 2006,38, 304–315. [CrossRef]
54.
Srivastava, P.K.; Kulshreshtha, K.; Mohanty, C.S.; Pushpangadan, P.; Singh, A. Stakeholder-based SWOT
analysis for successful municipal solid waste management in Lucknow, India. Waste Manag.
2005
,25,
531–537. [CrossRef]
55.
Johnson, G.; Scholes, K.; Sexty, R.W. Exploring Strategic Management, 2nd ed.; 1984 published under title:
Exploring corporate strategy; Prentice-Hall Canada: Scarborough, ON, Canada, 1989; p. 345. ISBN 0132974908.

Sustainability 2019,11, 2101 19 of 19
56.
Yuan, H. A SWOT analysis of successful construction waste management. J. Clean. Prod.
2013
,39, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
57.
European Commission. EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard 2015; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2016;
Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/targets_indicators/scoreboard/
pdf/EU%20Resource%20Efficiency%20Scoreboard%202015.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2019).
58.
UN Habitat. Inclusive and Sustainable Urban Planning: A Guide for Municipalities Vol. 4; UNHABITAT, United
Nation Human Settlements Programme, UNON Publishing Service Section: Nairobi, Kenya, 2007.
59.
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. In Political Economy
of Institutions and Decisions (Series), 1st ed.; Alt, J.E., Douglass, C.N., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New
York, NY, USA, 1990; ISBN 0521405998.
60.
Gissi, E.; Burkhard, B.; Verburg, P.H. Ecosystem services: Building informed policies to orient landscape
dynamics. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2015,11, 185–189. [CrossRef]
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).