ArticlePDF Available

Comprehensiveness of Circular Economy assessments of regions: a systematic review at the macro-level

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The circular economy (CE) is emerging as a solution for a thriving economy within regional and planetary boundaries for environment and social justice. CE is multifaceted with interconnected processes and therefore rather difficult to assess comprehensively. This paper reviewed the corpus of macro-level CE assessments, to find the best practices in CE assessments of regions scaling from neighborhoods to planetary. The extensive content analysis on the corpus of 165 studies used a novel mixed methods of meta-analysis, taxonomy and integrative review. This review investigates the comprehensiveness of CE assessments. Findings include three types of CE performance monitoring, four types of resource clustering, five scales, and a 5-step procedure to evaluate CE. CE can be monitored on: (a) absolute performance, quantifying economic resource-input, stock and waste-output; (b) efficiency performance, monitoring the optimization of CE processes similar to recycling, reuse, or even sharing and virtualizing; (c) policy performance to monitor strategies from regional stakeholders. Resource clustering can create hierarchies by metrics, uses, system-boundaries, or emergy. Identified scales are: XL for the planet; L for continents; M for large provinces, states and smaller countries; S for cities; and, XS for neighborhoods. Scales assist in comparing and benchmarking, but are also required for a proposed policy of localizing CE. This review found the ReSOLVE-framework as relatively comprehensive on CE processes. Also, multiple knowledge gaps were identified among resources, processes and regions. This review aids CE knowledge accumulation across regions and scales, to accelerate implementing the CE.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac209c
OPEN ACCESS
RECEIVED
1 July 2021
REVISED
16 August 2021
ACC EPT ED FOR PUB LICATI ON
24 August 2021
PUBLISHED
16 September 2021
Original content from
this work may be used
under the terms of the
Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 licence.
Any further distribution
of this work must
maintain attribution to
the author(s) and the title
of the work, journal
citation and DOI.
TOPICAL REVIEW
Comprehensiveness of circular economy assessments of regions:
a systematic review at the macro-level
Bart J A Van Bueren, Usha Iyer-Raniga, Mark A A M Leendersand Kevin Argus
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: bartvanbueren@gmail.com
Keywords: circular economy, macro level, region, comprehensive, assessment, targets, localizing
Supplementary material for this article is available online
Abstract
The circular economy (CE) is emerging as a solution for a thriving economy within regional and
planetary boundaries for environment and social justice. CE is multifaceted with interconnected
processes and therefore rather difficult to assess comprehensively. This paper reviewed the corpus
of macro-level CE assessments, to find the best practices in CE assessments of regions scaling from
neighborhoods to planetary. The extensive content analysis on the corpus of 165 studies used a
novel mixed methods of meta-analysis, taxonomy and integrative review. This review investigates
the comprehensiveness of CE assessments. Findings include three types of CE performance
monitoring, four types of resource clustering, five scales, and a 5-step procedure to evaluate CE. CE
can be monitored on: (a) absolute performance, quantifying economic resource-input, stock and
waste-output; (b) efficiency performance, monitoring the optimization of CE processes similar to
recycling, reuse, or even sharing and virtualizing; (c) policy performance to monitor strategies
from regional stakeholders. Resource clustering can create hierarchies by metrics, uses,
system-boundaries, or emergy. Identified scales are: XL for the planet; L for continents; M for large
provinces, states and smaller countries; S for cities; and, XS for neighborhoods. Scales assist in
comparing and benchmarking, but are also required for a proposed policy of localizing CE. This
review found the ReSOLVE-framework as relatively comprehensive on CE processes. Also, multiple
knowledge gaps were identified among resources, processes and regions. This review aids CE
knowledge accumulation across regions and scales, to accelerate implementing the CE.
1. Introduction
A global and local challenge is to keep the economy
within an environmentally safe and socially-just zone,
with upper boundaries set by the ecosystem capa-
city and lower boundaries to ensure quality of life for
society [13]. There are governments and others who
respond to this triple bottom line (TBL) challenge by
transitioning towards a circular economy (CE), as an
approach to decouple anthropogenic pollutants and
resource consumption from economic development
[46].
There is no clear and unified definition of CE [7].
Narrow definitions are about optimizing resource
consumption through recycling, but mainstream
definitions lean towards a broad sustainability
paradigm with comprehensively optimizing the TBL
dimensions of environment, society and economy
[7,8].
A CE that comprehensively optimizes the TBL
is more ideal, but this requires a complex systems
approach to manage the interconnectiveness of pro-
cesses and resources within the TBL-dimensions
[911]. When this systems approach is insufficiently
comprehensive, it may result in managing towards
suboptimal solutions, or problem shifting to pro-
cesses and resources that are missing in the sys-
tems [12]. Optimization also requires evaluations for
evidence-based decision-making through measure-
ment, assessment, comparison, and benchmarking
[1315].
These evaluations for CE are done at three dif-
ferent system levels: macro-level for regions (here
used synonymously to geographic area and territory);
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
meso-level for symbiosis between industries; and,
micro-level for firms [16]. Each level requires a dif-
ferent systems approach. Comprehensive assessments
are particularly a concern for the macro-level, as
all processes, resources, and TBL-dimensions come
together here [1722].
There are already hundreds of CE assessment
studies [2325]. Most of these are intended as com-
prehensive, however, their heterogeneous approaches
suggest an absence of a successful comprehensive sys-
tems approach. Many authors have recognized this
need for a comprehensive assessment approach for
the macro-level. For instance, Geng and Doberstein
[17] urge for ‘an information system adopting a sys-
tems approach is required if decision-makers are to find
more environmentally and financially beneficial ways
to plan and manage their resources.’ Haupt et al [20]
questions Macro-level studies: ‘Do we have the right
performance indicators for the CE?’ Silvestri et al [22]
state that the clearest gaps on macro-level are: ‘inad-
equate monitoring and evaluation of CE implementa-
tions through the use of composite indicators (…) the
construction of a comprehensive CE Index to capture CE
performance as multidimensional phenomenon seems
to be missing.’ This paper therefore aims to under-
stand how to assess CE scoped as a comprehensive
system.
This paper systematically reviews current CE
macro-level assessments, to find which processes,
resources, and TBL dimensions are assessed. A
review specifically targeting the macro-level is still
noteworthy among the many existing CE literat-
ure reviews. This review aims to amalgamate stud-
ies towards a comprehensive assessment approach
for the macro-level, by exposing the gaps in cur-
rent approaches. The gaps result from exploring
sub-questions where, when and why, and foremost
what and how these studies assess CE. This is fol-
lowed by synthesizing the studies for comprehensive
approaches. All these steps are followed to answer the
research question: what is needed for a comprehens-
ive systems approach assessing CE at the macro-level?
Contributions of this study are threefold. First,
a methodological contribution for extra rigour
through a mixed-methods review, finding gaps and
previously hidden patterns in the CE literature.
Second, structuring CE assessments in: three distinct
types of performance monitoring, five scales, four
types of resource clustering, and a 5-steps procedure
to evaluate CE; all expand knowledge on compre-
hensiveness of CE assessments. Third, revealing gaps
in literature, particularly in self-proclaimed compre-
hensive frameworks, denoting the fluid conceptual
foundations of CE.
2. Materials and methods
A corpus on ‘assessing CE for macro-level’ was cre-
ated to review what this entire body of literature has
and has not covered. Quantitative evidence from this
corpus is created by a meta-analysis and taxonomy.
Both review methods are powerful to review a large
set of literature on coverage, focus, goals, perspect-
ive, research methods, theories and more [26,27].
Yet, both fail to find richer qualitative evidence as
they do not involve much-nuanced reading [28].
Therefore, the third review-method applied is a qual-
itative integrative review. An integrative approach
reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative liter-
ature on a topic in an integrated way such that new
frameworks and perspectives on the topic are gener-
ated’ [29]. Elsbach and van Knippenberg [28] argue
this method to be among the most useful for advan-
cing knowledge and furthering research. The quant-
itative methods guide the integrative review to eli-
cit a deeper qualitative review. A mixed-methods
review is novel as it adds to existing methodolo-
gical gaps, providing an all-round content analysis
with rigour and validation of evidence. The suc-
cess of the mixed-methods review is discussed in
section 5.6. The methods are assisted by software
tools Scopus, Google-search, NVivo, Wordclouds and
Excel.
2.1. Corpus creation
To create a complete corpus, a systematic proced-
ure was used similar to PRISMA. PRISMA [30] is
the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews
and Meta-analyses’ for medical sciences. PRISMA is
applied with a flexible rationale, because CE is not
as organized in terminology and methods as med-
ical sciences are. This resulted in a flow-diagram with
six different batches collecting 165 papers and reports
(see figure 1). The corpus is available in Appendix
1 (available online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/16/103001/
mmedia).
Batches 1 and 2 come from a Scopus search on
papers published after 2009 with keywords: circu-
lar, economy, indicator, index, metric, assess and
measuring, and their conjugations. The results were
filtered manually on relevance. Batch 3 extends the
corpus via snowballing by checking citations in
papers from the search results to identify additional
papers [31]. Batches 1–3 include 30 papers by their
English abstract only, as the full paper was either
unavailable or not in the English language. Batch 4
expands the corpus by hand-picking papers that are
not about CE, but have a similar comprehensive sys-
tems approach, they are e.g. on sustainability and
doughnut economy. This batch is kept small as our
focus is on CE, as CE gained a lot of traction in recent
years. Batches 5 and 6 are from Google searches on the
original keywords, with selectively handpicked grey
literature. Grey literature makes an evidential contri-
bution to CE via reports from governments, and con-
sultants like the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF)
and Metabolic.
2
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Figure 1. PRISMA [30] inspired flow-diagram for systematically creating a corpus.
Table 1. Keywords explaining theme, logarithmic scale references, conjugations, and manual processing.
Keyword Theme References ref. Conjugations Manual processing
Waste Wastes 10363 in 135 studies 102 Wasted, wasteful,
wastes, wasting
Economy TBL 7196 in 160 studies 85 Economic, economical,
economically,
economics, econom-
ize, economized, eco-
nomie, economies,
economy
Exclude ‘circular economy’
(6.984) as it has a different
meaning then ‘economy’
Recycle Strategies 4559 in 117 studies 68 Recyclability, recyc-
lable, recyclables,
recycled, recycler,
recyclers, recycles,
recycling, recycling
Exclude ‘resources con-
servation and recycling’
(161), because this is a
journal title.
SDG Methodologies,
and TBL
548 in 45 studies 23 ‘sustainable develop-
ment goal’ ‘sustainable
development goals’,
sdgs
Include ‘people, planet’
(12), TBL (0), ‘triple bot-
tom line’ (9)
Buiksloterham Region 409 in 4 studies 20 Exclude 176 page headers
Virtualize Strategies 249 in 47 studies 16 Virtual, virtualise,
virtualization, virtual-
isation
Include digital, digitally,
digitalization digitalisa-
tion, digitize digitalized.
2.2. Meta-analysis
The meta-analysis builds from salient keywords in the
corpus. These were obtained with the bibliometric-
analysis software NVivo, by searching for the 1000
most frequent used lexical words, including their
conjugations. From analyzing the keywords, six
themes emerged that relate to the sub-questions. The
keywords were then categorized into these themes, or
disregarded for not having a relevant meaning. This
resulted in 408 relevant keywords, each with over 160
references, and 350 414 references combined.
The six keyword themes are:
Regions: 79 keywords and 49 469 references
(14.1%).
TBL: 43 keywords and 38 507 references (11.0%).
Resources: 81 keywords and 91463 references
(26.1%).
Wastes: 25 keywords and 22 312 references (6.4%).
Strategies (and processes): 107 keywords and 89 027
references (26.6%).
Methodologies: 69 keywords and 59 636 references
(17.0%).
(No relevant meaning: 592 disregarded keywords
with 333 352 references).
Examples of keywords, conjugations, and manual
processing is presented in table 1, the full list can be
found in appendix 2.
Next, wordclouds are created to further analyze
each theme and their keywords. In a wordcloud the
font-size of each keyword is weighted by the number
3
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Figure 2. Regions-wordcloud, with subthemes of locations and scales.
of references. The weighting used here is on a log-
arithmic (square-rooted) scale, as the distribution of
references per keyword follows a Gaussian curve (see
table 1). This creates smaller differences in font-sizes,
improving the readability of keywords in wordclouds.
The keywords are also color-coded by subthemes, as
presented in the results section.
The meta-analysis on salience of keywords creates
strong quantitative evidence from the complete
corpus. However, the corpus made the meta-analysis
slightly Western-centric. This is because 30 studies,
mostly from China, are under-represented by only an
abstract. Furthermore, searches were done in Eng-
lish language, resulting in a grey literature collec-
tion predominantly from Europe, of which some are
over-represented due to their length; e.g. [32] on
Buiksloterham is the lengthiest with 40 000 words.
2.3. Taxonomy
The taxonomy categorized the 165 studies of the cor-
pus into a datasheet on multiple topics (see appendix
1). The topics are: author, publication date, journal,
comprehensiveness, main-method, measurement-
type, data input, and results-presentation as well as
their assessments: location(s), scale(s), and period.
The taxonomy is used secondary to the meta-analysis
for answering the sub-questions of this research.
2.4. Integrative review
The integrative review takes a deep-dive into the
quantitative results from the meta-analysis and tax-
onomy by more nuanced reading, reviewing, cri-
tiquing and synthesizing. Through this, new insights
and perspectives arise from the review [28]. The
integrative review aims to create new guiding frame-
works to advance theory development on what is
needed for a comprehensive systems approach assess-
ing CE at macro-level.
3. Results meta-analysis and taxonomy
This combined results of the taxonomy and meta-
analysis contribute to answering the explorative
research sub-questions for: where, when, and why CE
assessments; what resources are assessed; and, how is
the resource-use optimized of comprehensive assess-
ments on CE at macro-level.
3.1. Where?—introducing scales
Keywords on the theme of regions account for 14.1%
of all keyword references. Two distinctive subthemes
are identified; location of region, and scale of region
(see figure 2). Figure 2displays that most assess-
ments are done in either Europe or (Peoples Repub-
lic of) China, but there are also other locations.
Many keywords imply a scale of region (keywords
in green), but they are rather vague, e.g. a country
does not define an actual scale. A clear classification
of scales allows better ‘like to like’ comparing and
benchmarking; supports the taxonomy, and; clarity
in general. The EU [33] introduces such classifica-
tion, but this is not usable outside the EU. Therefore,
our paper proposes a classification with: XL-scale
for planetary studies; L-scale for continents, supra-
national regions and large countries; M-scale for large
provinces, states, smaller countries and mega-cities;
S-scale for cities, small provinces and municipalit-
ies; and, XS-scale for neighborhoods (see figure 3).
This classification is chosen mostly because many
studies already implicitly use it for comparisons (see
appendix 1).
Scales help with ‘like to like’ comparing. For
example, it is not cogent to compare China with
4
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Figure 3. Classification into scales XL-XS as sublevel from
macro-level.
the Netherlands (country to country), but China
can be compared with Europe (L-scale to L-scale);
as both size (in km2) and population are compar-
able [34]. Benchmarks are also bound to scales,
as each scale should set different CE targets. For
example, L-scale may target a full CE within its scale-
boundaries, but S-scale would reasonably target only
certain resources. This concept of ‘localizing CE’ is
discussed in the discussion section 5.3.
The taxonomy classified both locations and scales
of all studies (see figure 4). It presents that 94
studies (57%) include European regions; 67 studies
(41%) include Chinese regions, and; only 42 stud-
ies (25%) include other regions. The number of aca-
demic studies in Europe and China is similar (65 and
63 respectively); the difference appears greater only
because English-language grey literature is mostly
about Europe. Only 12 studies (7%) focus solely on
regions outside Europe and China. Studies are fairly
distributed over all scales, except for XS-scale with
just 8 studies (5%).
The majority of studies make comparisons
between regions for benchmarking, and they mostly
compare regions within the same scale. As this cannot
be done on the XL-scale, 13 out of 22 XL-scale stud-
ies also include L or M-scales with comparisons on
these scales. Comparisons between different scales is
only done in ten studies (6%). Comparisons between
different scales are somewhat misleading, but inter-
scale studies can explore top-down, and bottom-up
effects between region and its own sub-regions.
3.2. When?—increases per region
The when-question is explored by taxonomy. Figure 5
presents a graph with the number of publications
per year, specified by assessed location and scale.
It presents a steep increase of total studies from
2016 onwards, which is also the inflection point
for European regions, followed by 2017 for other
regions. Studies on Chinese regions are published
more gradually over time, with a peak in 2011.
The number of XL-scale studies has slightly declined
over the years, and S-scale studies have risen since
2016.
To delve deeper into the ‘when-question’, the tax-
onomy results were compared with release dates of CE
policies, as found in the studies. It was found that CE
policies were followed by assessments in their region
(e.g. [6,35] for China, and [4] for EU), but also in
their scale (e.g. [36] for S-scale).
Concerning the assessed timeframes, it was found
that: 38% (63 studies) assess only a single timeframe
with data from one year. 36% (60 studies) assess lon-
gitudinal progress in regions. 10% (16 studies) only
focus on future targets or an approach without meas-
urements of a baseline year. For the remaining 6%
(10 studies) there was no timeframe found, as the full
study was not available.
3.3. Why?—for TBL: the environment, economy or
social equity?
The TBL is often the main argument for governments
to aim towards a CE. Keywords that relate to the
theme of TBL account for 11.0% of all keywords, yet
the keyword TBL (synonym with SDG as shown in
table 1) is only mentioned in 45 studies, with 548
references in total. TBL subthemes are social equity,
environment, and economy (see figure 6). Figure 6
reveals a fairly even distribution of references on the
TBL subthemes: 40% on environment, 33% on eco-
nomy, and 27% on social equity. Note that this result is
from quantitative salience of keywords; it did not ana-
lyze which dimensions of the TBL are assessed. Social
equity is evidently less assessed, because it is more dif-
ficult to monitor.
This distribution is more in balance than Geiss-
doerfer’s et al [8] observation: ‘CE clearly seems to
prioritise the economic systems with primary benefits
for the environment, and only implicit gains for social
aspects. This is probably because macro-level has a
more intrinsic comprehensive approach, e.g. [2,37].
The corpus refers little to resilience (36 studies,
234 references), and stability (38 studies, 93 refer-
ences). They are linked to environment and social
equity, e.g. [3,3840]. Economic resilience is only
mentioned by Singapore [41].
Additional searches were made for keywords
(including conjugations) that describe CE for smaller
scales: resource independence no references; autarky 1
[32]; self-sufficiency 53 references, but only six in aca-
demic publications, by [9,42]. Any of these in-salient
keywords combined with CE also scored low in a gen-
eral Scopus search.
3.4. What?—resources and wastes
Managing resources and their associated wastes is a
key-topic in the studies. 26.1% of all keywords are on
the theme of resources and 6.4% on wastes. Figure 7
presents them in two wordclouds with subthemes
bio-based and technical, along with their measure-
ment units. These subthemes to cluster resources
were introduced with the butterfly-framework from
EMF (2013). The meta-analysis found 21 bio-based
5
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Figure 4. Number of articles distributed over scales and location.
Figure 5. Years of publication of studies, with details of region location and scale. Note that one publication can assess several
locations and scales, therefore the total of locations and scales is larger than the total of publications.
resources with 12 679 references together; and 21
technical resources, with 9022 references together;
indicating a focus on bio-based resources. The most
common material measure unit is weight (mass) in
tons or kg, with 2791 references in total. The keyword
waste is found with 10 363 references, the most salient
keyword overall.
The meta-analysis and further analysis also iden-
tified resources that receive little attention. Indium
has 250 references from 6 studies. Other rare-earth
elements receive fewer references, with 16 studies
(10%) mentioning any, with five studies also assess-
ing them [4348]. Rare-earth elements are in very low
natural supply and indispensable for certain key tech-
nologies [49]. It is therefore important to assess their
circularity and availability in regions.
The data on the resources are mostly available by
existing databases. Different databases were put in
the taxonomy, presenting that about 25% of studies
using data from the National Bureau of Statistics in
China (NBSC) [50] and another 25% EuroStat [51].
A more complete overview of databases and their data
is provided in appendix 3.
Reviewed studies cluster and aggregate resources
in comprehensive assessments. E.g. clustering on bio-
based and technical, deepened with sub-clusters, or
broadened with clusters of non-material resources,
such as energy, population, and labor.
Four types of resource clustering were identified,
as listed here with examples:
1. Assessment on metrics:
a. Flow mass/volume: biomass, fossil-fuel car-
riers, ores, and minerals (with sub-clusters)
measured in weights (tons). Liquids (e.g.
sewage and manure) are excluded. Energy is
assessed via fossil-fuel carriers (e.g. oil and
natural gas) and biomass; solar and wind
renewables are not assessed as they have no
mass. This clustering example is by ‘Circu-
larity Gap reports’ [5256] on XL to M-
scales.
b. Footprints: carbon-dioxide (equivalents),
water, land and materials, mostly in weights
(tons). Example by [57] on L and M-scales
for EU, China, and USA. Global Footprint
6
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Figure 6. TBL (triple bottom line) wordcloud, with subthemes social equity, environment, and economy.
Figure 7. Resources and associated Wastes wordclouds.
Network (GFN) [58], initiated by [59],
assesses carbon-footprints, including car-
bon uptake of regions on XL to M-scales.
c. Economic value: water, material, energy
and land, measured in currency, and waste
in mass. Example by [60] on S-scale in
China.
2. Assessment on system-boundaries:
a. Planetary boundaries: climate change,
stratospheric ozone depletion, atmo-
spheric aerosol loading, ocean acidification,
biogeochemical flows of nitrogen and
phosphorus, freshwater use, land-system
change, biodiversity, and novel entities.
Example by Rockström [40] on XL-scale.
Nine other studies also create a similar ‘early
warning system’ with different boundaries
[3,6168].
b. TBL boundaries: additional to Rockström’s
nine ecological upper boundaries [40],
Raworth [3] adds 12 lower boundaries for
society: energy, water, food, health, edu-
cation, income & work, peace & justice,
political voice, social equity, gender equal-
ity, housing, and networks. The economy is
to balance between these boundaries.
7
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Figure 8. Strategy (and processes) wordclouds, from meta-analysis and superimposed on 10 R-framework and
ReSOLVE-framework.
3. Assessment on uses:
a. Societal uses: housing, communication, ser-
vices, consumables, mobility, healthcare,
and nutrition. Example also by [55].
b. Manufacturer origins: construction,
industry, and agriculture, all in weights
(tons). Example by Metabolic [69] on S-
scale for Copenhagen.
c. Waste destinations: recycling, incineration,
landfill, and specific-treatment with 14
more sub-clusters. Example also by Meta-
bolic [69].
4. Assessment on system effectiveness:
a. Emergy: materials, energy, labour and ser-
vices aggregated into solar emjoules. Three
studies use emergy [7072], e.g. [71]. on S-
scale for Napoli assess food, building mater-
ials, metals, additional materials, fuels,
renewables, labor & services and others.
Emergy as measure-unit for CE at macro-
level was introduced by [70] for Taipei, but
application is still low due to the complexity
of applying emergy at this level [73].
Identifying these types of clustering aids under-
standing that resources can be ‘comprehensively’
assessed in many ways. Each way leads to different
results as resources get placed in different hierarch-
ies. The purpose for clustering relates to monitoring
CE performance, which will be further discussed in
section 4.1.
3.5. How?—strategies and processes towards a CE
The strategies theme counts 107 different keywords
that make 25.4% (89 027 references) of all keywords
(see figure 8, top). This paper will use the term pro-
cesses for strategies in a context where they are quan-
tifiable resource actions (e.g. recycling as recycle-
rate).
The corpus includes studies that assess a single
process. E.g. ‘Circularity Gap reports’ [5256] assess
the recycling process of quite a comprehensive set of
resources; while [59,7476] assess the regeneration
process of all terrestrial bio-based resources.
Many studies aim to assess all processes com-
prehensively. This requires a ‘conceptual framework’
describing CE comprehensively. The most common
is a R-framework, as used by e.g. [7779]. Another
framework is the EMF ReSOLVE-framework [80] as
used in four studies [8083].
R-frameworks include a number of strategies
starting with ‘re’: refuse, reduce, reuse/resell, repair,
refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle, recover
and re-mine. These strategies have a hierarchy of
importance with refuse as most preferred, going down
the list to re-mine as least preferred [84,85]. However,
the meta-analysis shows that recycling; a lower-ranked
strategy, receives by far most attention with 4559 ref-
erences. Refuse is highest ranked in hierarchy, but as
8
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
keyword even with its synonyms prevent and avoid,
receives only 693 references combined. Figure 8bot-
tom left, compares keyword references from the cor-
pus, versus the theoretical hierarchy of R-frameworks.
The strategies wordcloud also reveals other
keywords starting with ‘re’ that are not included
in R-frameworks: regenerate, renew, replace, regulate
and resilience (with 250, 77, 227, 475, 234 references
respectively). It seems that R-frameworks are rather
limited to ‘waste management’, which is only one facet
of CE [6,86,87]. Besides, selecting keywords starting
with ‘re’ is rather whimsical to build a framework
upon.
The ReSOLVE-framework has no hierarchy in
strategies and is an acronym of the strategies: Regen-
erate, Share, Optimize, Loop, Virtualize and Exchange.
ReSOLVE from EMF [80] also explicitly men-
tions other strategies as related to aforementioned
strategies. Figure 8bottom right, presents ReSOLVE
strategies as wordcloud with keywords weighted from
the corpus. This ‘ReSOLVE wordcloud’ reveals that
the categories are fairly equally weighted, except for
Regenerate and Virtualize.
R-frameworks cover 11 542 references, and
ReSOLVE covers 19 226 references, all of these
could be interpreted as processes. From the remain-
ing keywords, 24 relate to governance strategies as
policies to stimulate CE, which cover 18720 refer-
ences. The remaining non-specific subtheme seems
related to the micro- and meso-level (see figure 8
top).
NBSC [50] and EuroStat [51] both provide a CE
key-indicator dataset. These are valuable measure-
ments for CE assessments, but they are not intended
as comprehensive conceptual frameworks [88]. Yet,
some studies (e.g. [22,77,8993]) use them as such,
even without much arguments or evidence on com-
prehensiveness, weighting, or hierarchy.
The meta-analysis presents ReSOLVE as self-
proclaimed comprehensive framework that is actu-
ally reasonably comprehensive and fairly weighted for
CE processes. Note here that this meta-analysis only
creates quantitative evidence grounded in the exist-
ing body of literature on ‘assessing CE at macro-level’.
This could also mean that the lower weighted Regen-
erate and Virtualize are not less important, but actu-
ally insufficiently studied as they are arguably very
impactful. Despite our positive review on ReSOLVE,
it is only applied in four studies. Section 5.4 discusses
deeper on which processes to include for a compre-
hensive assessment.
3.6. How?—methodologies to evaluate CE
The remaining keywords from the meta-analysis are
the methodologies theme (59 636 references; 17.6%).
The meta-analysis and taxonomy on this theme con-
firmed findings from earlier literature reviews from
Saidani et al [24] and Sassanalli et al [25]. No
significant new findings were made here, therefore
these results were left out of the paper. Results are
available in appendix 1 (taxonomy) and appendix 2
(meta-analysis). A more qualitative method for fur-
ther answering ‘how to evaluate CE’ is explored in
section 4. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 will discuss our results
in relation to other literature reviews.
4. Results integrative review
The integrative review builds further on the meta-
analysis and taxonomy. Now with a more qualitat-
ive approach, the research question is reiterated ‘What
is needed for a comprehensive systems approach assess-
ing CE at macro-level?. This integrative review aims
to provide guidance and advances knowledge through
synthesis.
4.1. Reviewing differences in monitoring CE
performance
The review by meta-analysis and taxonomy revealed
limitations in studies not only on comprehensiveness
and clarity, but also the heterogeneous approaches
towards comprehensively assessing CE. A more
nuanced review identified three types of CE monit-
oring, of absolute performance, efficiency performance
and, policy performance:
(a) Absolute performance: monitors resources to
find the biggest contributors to prioritize. Clus-
tering resources (as covered in 3.4) create a
hierarchy of priorities for regional stakeholders.
Indicators include input entering the economic
system; stocks accumulated, and/or; output
exiting as waste. Studies hardly monitor stock
accumulation, which is further discussed in
section 5.5. Absolute performance can include
economic or social dimensions by compar-
ing resources consumption with economic-
indicators (e.g. Gross Domestic Product; GDP)
and social-indicators (e.g. Human Develop-
ment Index, HDI). Monitoring absolute per-
formance builds on the conceptual framework
from industrial ecology, as described by Bould-
ing [94] and Daly [95]. Here the economic sys-
tem is depicted as subsystem of the eco system
(see figure 9), it depicts that a CE is accom-
plished in a region when the (socio-) economic
consumption as throughput does not exceed
the regeneration capacity of its eco system. A
few studies therefore offset the economic impact
against the eco system regeneration capacity, e.g.
[40,59,7476]., however, these studies assess
sustainability and do not use the term CE. CE
assessments have been limited to only assessing
the economic system, but this misses the point
that the boundaries of the economic system is
set by the eco system.
(b) Efficiency performance: monitors CE pro-
cesses in regions to understand capacities and
9
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Figure 9. A conceptual framework from industrial ecology,
based on [94,95]. The economic system is depicted as
sub-system of the eco system, with input and output as
their interaction, resulting in a ‘shrinking parent’ as the
economic system devours the eco system. Regeneration is
the capacity of the eco system to restore the waste created
from throughput of the economic system. Loop are the CE
processes that make a reversed resource flow, such as recycle,
remanufacture, refurbish and compost. This systems
approach only depicts material flows, it is not
comprehensive for assessing processes like share, optimize,
virtualize, exchange and the TBL.
where/what/how to optimize. It is challenging
to assess CE performance comprehensively. This
is because there are so many CE processes (as
shown in figure 8). Many processes can be com-
bined for monitoring and measuring as resource
flows in an input-output framework, as is done
in figure 9. However, this would still exclude
e.g. share, optimize, virtualize, exchange and the
TBL. Every efficiency performance assessment is
currently unique, which prevents comparisons
between results.
(c) Policy performance: monitors strategies used
by the region to improve CE. Policies are
governance-related (see figure 8) and include
qualitatively assessing CE processes. Reviewed
studies do not present a comprehensive frame-
work to monitor strategies, but rather give a non-
exhaustive list of examples, e.g. [80,82,89]. It
seems that CE policy frame-works still need to
develop more (also confirmed by [21,88,96]).
Assessing policies may be rather subjective, but
it is in-dispensable for introducing strategies to
different regions [97].
Studies in the corpus often combine absolute,
efficiency and policy indicators in one assessment.
Arguably, this is not a good systems approach and
it reduces the meaning of the results. Efficiency is
the means to an end; absolute CE is that end, there-
fore they should not be aggregated. A 100% CE
performance in absolute terms could be defined by
zero-input or output from the economic system (see
figure 9). CE efficiency could be defined by 100% effi-
ciency of loop-processes, supported with high rates
in other CE processes. Efficiency performance may
have a discrepancy with absolute performance due
to increasing population, increasing affluence, and
rebound-effects. The corpus does not monitor them
as part of a CE strategy, but they are also factors in the
system. Ideally, policies should create sufficient effi-
ciency to stay within the absolute boundaries of the
planet.
4.2. Synthesizing the procedure for comprehensive
CE evaluation at macro-level
Heretofore overlooked is the procedure to create a
comprehensive assessment. No study in the corpus
references to any conceptual or tested procedural
steps, despite this being a general challenge for all
measurement studies. We synthesized the studies to
find procedural steps that build a reliable and valid
assessment. Findings from section 3.6 guided this
procedure, and studies were reviewed again to explore
recurring steps and the rigour in their procedure. The
synthesis identified five interdependent procedural
steps (see figure 10). These steps actually coincide
with measurement-theory of measuring an abstract
construct with observable measurements [98100].
The steps of this 5-step procedure are:
1. Conceptual input: A study needs to refer to
a clear definition of CE, as CE is a rather
abstract construct without unified definition.
The definition should provide its dimensions
and specify implications for the region. This
could be developed with the help of a concep-
tual framework. Reviewed studies make very dif-
ferent interpretations of CE and its many defin-
itions, partially because current definitions are
ambiguous on the implications of CE at macro-
level.
2. Observable input: Resource flows and processes
can be measured because they are observable in
regions and at any time-frame. These measure-
ments form data input for assessments. Studies
in this corpus mostly use quantitative measure-
ments readily available in databases as listed in
appendix 3. Just 13% (21 studies) did not use
databases, instead they conducted interviews to
seek primary data or made estimations as data
input.
3. Assess: Conceptual input and observable input
are conditional steps for assessments. As CE
and its dimensions are not directly observ-
able, reflecting proxy indicators needs to be
aggregated from multiple observable measure-
ments. The assessment framework is composed
of proxy indicators as a practical interpretation
of the conceptual framework. Compromises
10
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Figure 10. Diagram of the 5-step procedure on how to make a comprehensive CE evaluation for regions.
will be needed as some conceptual dimensions
are not practically assessable due availability,
reliability and alike. These limitations should
be stated clearly, preferably even presented
in the assessment framework. However, most
self-proclaimed comprehensive studies are
rather hazy on what is included and excluded.
Studies seem to create assessment frameworks
formatively by available measurements that do
not cover all conceptual input. Monitoring abso-
lute, efficiency or policy performance requires
different frameworks and different methods, e.g.
MFA (Material Flow Assessment), or a fuzzy-
method with multi-criteria decision making. It
was found that many methods are unable to
sufficiently assess all CE dimensions.
4. Compare & benchmark: Assessment results can
be compared and benchmarked with other
regions or time-frames. Studies assess their most
recent observable input to compare with: past
years of longitudinal progress; a future target
or expectation; a region of the same scale; or,
its supra-region. The contribution of a study
increases when multiple comparisons are made,
as it creates more results, but also better bench-
marking.Comparisons are usually presented in
a chart or table, ideally presented in a widely
applicable dashboard or index with an over-
view of score and rank that can be reproduced
for more assessments [101]. 29 Studies made
attempts to create a CE index as universal as GDP
or HDI, however, only ‘Circularity gap report’
[5255], footprints, emergy, and eco-efficiency
has been applied multiple times.
5. Output: Comparing and benchmarking gives
a prognosis on the region, which should be
followed by an action plan with CE targets.
The success of the action can be assessed by
iteration.
The 5-step procedure helps in creating structure,
transparency, reliability and validity for comprehens-
ive assessments; leading to stronger comparisons and
benchmarking with the right CE targets. The steps
in most reviewed studies are disconnected, as they
lack considerations of procedural steps in creating
an assessment. CE dimensions, measurements, proxy
indicators and performance indicators are mixed up,
and little reasoning goes to weighting and hierarchy.
Studies end up as ‘mashup index’ [101] with erro-
neous and obscure results in reliability and validity
and therefore, also on its comprehensiveness.
5. Discussion
The discussion section covers six points: Placement
of findings in a broader context by (a) comparing
similar review-studies, and (b) transferability of find-
ings. Gaps on (c) localizing CE, (d) strategies and pro-
cesses, and (e) slow-flowing resources. Final point is
(f) the methodological contribution.
5.1. Literature reviews compared
This corpus overlaps with corpora in literature
reviews from [2325]. This paper selected 165 macro-
level studies as corpus, whereas [23] selected 37 meso-
level studies [24]; 19 macro-level, 16 meso-level, and
20 micro-level studies; and [25], 45 meso- plus micro-
level studies. Particularly their taxonomies on meth-
odologies and indicators overlap with our findings on
this. These findings are therefore not in section 3.6,
but presented in appendix 1. Our corpus is notably
larger, but not because macro-level is more popular
than other levels; batch 2 selected only 51 out 295
studies as macro-level (see figure 1). Our corpus is
larger because it includes: 74 papers published after
the creation of their inventories; 21 papers that do
not mention CE (but are relatable to CE); and, 30
abstracts without available (English) full paper.
11
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Figure 11. Proposed classification of scales as sublevels from macro-, meso, and micro-levels.
5.2. Transferability of findings to meso- and
micro-level
Certain findings from our macro-level review may
also be transferable to meso- and micro-level as com-
prehensive assessments are explored on all system
levels. The rationale for the 5-step procedure, monit-
oring different performances (absolute, efficiency or
policy), and scales seem valid for all levels.
Meso- and micro-level have need scales for
like-to-like comparisons and benchmarking just as
macro-level does. Figure 11 drafts scales for meso-
and micro-level, in addition to the macro-level scales
introduced earlier in this paper. The additional scales
were identified through a quick review of meso- and
micro-level studies from the inventories of [2325].
Three meso-level scales are proposed. Eco-park-
scale represents (manufacturing) companies in phys-
ical proximity to each other and engaging in a symbi-
osis of mutually beneficial exchange of waste and by-
products. Supply chain-scale is for the symbiosis pro-
cess applied on an industry sector. Ecosystem-scale is
between multiple (or all) sectors in a region as urban
industrial symbiosis.
Four scales for micro-level are proposed.
Business-scale represents all negative and positive
impacts a company makes. Product/service-scale is
for the impact of a single product or service. Process-
scale is for the impact of a single (manufacturing)
process. Consumer-scale is for the contribution to
CE by an individual, or group, through a specific
firm, or in general.
5.3. Gap on localizing the CE: benchmarking
region targets and boundaries
A gap was found that reviewed studies do not explore
self-sufficiency, autarky, resource-independence,
resilience, or stability (see section 3.3). Only a single
study [102] assesses localizing the CE with ‘prox-
imity’ as an indicator. Indeed, it seems that current
studies and policies have not set the right targets to
work towards an absolute CE [21,87,103].
Therefore, this paper introduces localizing CE as
a new strategy for what other studies [72,88] have
called the ideal CE of urban industrial symbiosis.
Local supply-chains should be created to close the
loop on the smallest possible scale. Localizing CE sets
benchmarks on scales smaller than planetary bound-
aries. CE targets for full circularity of certain resources
and waste can be set on smaller scales; certain CE
processes and strategies should be managed within
the scale-boundaries of L, M, S and XS-scales. Small
scales may not be able to achieve a fully self-sufficient
and closed CE, but high levels of CE within scale-
boundaries is imaginable. Regions with high self-
sufficiency become building-blocks that, when com-
bined, stay within planetary boundaries.
This paper argues for localizing CE as a new
policy by setting local CE targets and boundaries.
Any region should thrive for a full CE, with only the
resources, wastes and processes that cannot be man-
aged within the region to be carried by its supra-
region. These policies may be more successful than
top-down approaches as local policymakers are more
agile and more in control to implement a CE, espe-
cially when supply-chains localize and create urban
industrial symbiosis. Policymakers can learn quickly
through assessing, comparing, benchmarking, and
sharing with peer-regions; building capacity together.
Another argument for localizing CE is enhancing
local resilience and stability (keywords with also only
few references). History has shown many examples
where inter-regional dependency caused problems:
garbage piling up when regions could not export their
waste; lack of local manufacturing and repair facilit-
ies due to cheaper labour elsewhere; exploitation of
human and nature in economically underdeveloped
regions; abandoning of towns after mines closed;
droughts after diversion of water upstream; and
(trade) wars due to local resource scarcity. Localizing
the CE supports regional jobs, and resources become
resilient from external influences like geopolitical ten-
sions and pandemics.
A barrier against localizing is the convenience
of globalized supply-chains and exports of waste.
Despite some initial economic benefits, globalized
supply-chains create economic dependency and large
(unaccounted) social and environmental impacts
[104]. Opportunities towards localizing CE and
12
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
Table 2. Proposed ‘resource & waste’-targets, and ‘strategy & process’-boundaries on macro-level scales to localize the CE. The targets
and boundaries are listed on their ideal smallest scale for self-sufficiency. This to manage the CE more locally and reduce problem
shifting. Regions could consider this as a new CE policy.
Resource & waste
CE targets
Complex
electronics
High-end
products
Fossil fuels
Biomass
Metals
Chemicals
Rare earths
e-waste
Vehicle
production
Livestock/fish
GHG
Food
Water
Industrial waste
Glass
Timber
Population
Concrete
Products
Forestry
Nutrients/soil
Space
Plastic
Paper
Heat/cold
Employment
Local commuting
Household waste
Accumulated stock
Sewage
Energy
Food
crops
Food-
waste
Fresh
water
Strategy & process
boundaries
Legislation
standards
technologies
Recycle of slow
Consumables
Regenerate
ecosystems
Remanufacture
Virtualize
Recycle of fast
Consumables
Refurbish
Eco efficiency
Tax
Replant trees
Maintain/service
Resell
Educate
Divert replace
Building (element)
reuse and longevity
Population growth
Solar/wind
Share
Reuse
Compost
countering the economy of scale are innovations such
as photovoltaics, 3D-printing, internet, peer-to-peer
networks and urban farming.
Table 2introduces ‘resource & waste’-targets, and
‘strategy & process’-boundaries for localizing CE.
The targets and boundaries are listed on their ideal
smallest scale for self-sufficiency. This to manage the
CE more locally and reduce problem shifting to other
or larger scales. For example, S-scale should consider
food-waste composting and energy self-sufficiency
(e.g. by solar), but e-waste may be better processed on
the L-scale. The corpus did not provide these targets,
but they guided the development of these. Assess-
ments can be made to find the benchmark-region
that successfully meets the best CE targets. Any type
of performance monitoring can be applied on any
region-scale, each with their own local benchmarks
and CE targets.
5.4. Comprehensive assessments of an
incomprehensive definition on CE
Through this review it became evident that different
conceptual input of CE definitions and frameworks
lead to very different assessments. None of the assess-
ments have a comprehensive systems approach. Par-
ticularly studies that monitor CE efficiency perform-
ance focus too much on resource flows that loop.
There are many more strategies and processes that are
more impactful. Monitoring efficiency comprehens-
ively should arguably include more processes:
(a) Reuse, repair, and remanufacturing; they lack
macro-level indicators (also according [86,96]).
(b) Share, virtualize and longevity; are also key to CE
[5,8], and their impact may actually exceed that
of the loop-processes. Longevity is further dis-
cussed in section 5.5.
(c) Consumer behaviour; according to various con-
ceptual studies, e.g. [8,19], these processes are
also part of CE. Yet, only two studies in the
corpus address this [83,105]. Only one assess-
ment indicator was found on this: the basket of
products. This indicator was introduced by the
EU [106] to assess consumption patterns and
their impact.
(d) Culture, behaviour change and family planning;
these impactful processes are not part of the eco-
nomic system, but about the society as a whole.
Maybe this is why the Japanese government uses
the term ‘Material-Cycle Society’ instead [107].
(e) Regeneration, reforestation and carbon-capture;
these processes occur outside the economic sys-
tem but do affect the balance with the natural
eco system. They are related to the (economic)
resource of space and land-use.
(f) Negative processes occurring outside the eco-
nomic system but affecting the balance (e.g.
methane-emissions from melting permafrost).
All these processes for efficiency do significantly
contribute to the absolute CE performance of balan-
cing the economic system within the boundaries of
the eco system (as visualized in figure 9). And there
are also the processes affecting social-equality as part
of the TBL, these are nearly completely missing in
assessments.
The focus on processes that loop is partially due to
a literal interpretation of circular economy, but main-
stream CE definitions defined CE as a comprehensive
systems approach with optimizing the TBL dimen-
sions. But these definitions are fuzzy on what needs
13
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
to be (comprehensively) assessed to achieve this, and
without problem shifting. This ontological issue is the
biggest gap for all reviewed literature.
5.5. Gap on slow flows: longevity and accumulated
stock
Longevity of resources is a key element of CE
[5,8,108] but the corpus has overlooked this;
keywords longevity, durable, durability, long-life and
life extension have only 192 references combined.
Only three studies [52,55,81] evaluated longevity by
assessing building and infrastructure stock.
Two ‘Circularity gap reports’ [52,55] assessed the
significance of stocks accumulation in Gigatones (Gt)
on XL-scale. Study [52] found that in 2015: ‘Accu-
mulated material stocks are almost 10 times larger in
total than annual material throughput—890Gt versus
92.8Gt, respectively. The studies also found that the
stock accumulation grew with 36.0Gt in 2015 and
48.0Gt in 2017, which is nearly half of all material
input into the economy. Dramatic regional differ-
ences were found by a comparison on the L-scale;
Europe had 96Gt accumulated in 2015, and grows
towards 107Gt in 2050 (as prediction); whereas China
had 239Gt accumulated in 2015, and grows to 562Gt
in 20 150 (as prediction). Study [52] is also appre-
hensive about the longevity of China’s stocks.
Christis et al [81] assessed the loss of long-term
stock on S-scale for Brussels and found it accounts for
10% of carbon-dioxide (equivalent) emissions, and
ca. 25% of waste mass. Many studies assessed waste on
S-scale, only looked as fast-flowing municipal solid
wastes (MSWs).
Longevity and accumulated stock is of signific-
ance in a CE, thus require policy and indicators
in comprehensive assessments. Longevity of stocks
indicates the success of CE strategies such as design,
maintenance, renovation, repair, and resell. Accumu-
lated stock (shared) per capita reflects resource effi-
ciency, e.g. roads (in km) per capita. Accumulated
stock is a CE opportunity advantaging developed
regions.
5.6. Methodological contribution
This mixed-method approach is novel, but this paper
demonstrated that a meta-analysis, taxonomy, and an
integrative review make a powerful team in covering
a large corpus. The meta-analysis by keyword sali-
ence, presents itself as a laudable objective and sys-
tematic method to quickly cover a corpus. With 165
studies, 408 keywords with 350 414 references com-
bined, the meta-analysis is robust against subject-
ive decisions, manual mistakes, and misinterpreting
keywords from their context. Its weakness is the rough
data aggregation, which overlooks certain patterns
or categories. However, this is where the taxonomy
showed its strength, e.g. in identifying macro-level
scales, and publication numbers per year and region.
The taxonomy was only used when the meta-analysis
was insufficient, as a taxonomy is rather labour-
intensive in classifying a large corpus.
Meta-analysis and taxonomy created strong
quantitative evidence (as noted by [27]), but are
blind to qualitative findings hidden in the corpus.
This is where the qualitative integrative review con-
tributes; sculpting rich details on top of the raw
carving from meta-analysis and taxonomy. The integ-
rative review synthesizing and critiquing literature
advanced knowledge and research (as noted by [28]).
The meta-analysis and taxonomy were a precondition
for the integrative review. This review succeeded in
all-round grounded rigour for identifying gaps and
patterns within the corpus.
6. Conclusion
One cannot manage what we do not measure’ [15],
but many regions are not short on measurements that
relate to multiple facets of CE; the challenge now is
assessing CE comprehensively, by the right combin-
ation and weighted hierarchy of measurements. This
will enable management of CE more successfully, for
a thriving economy within regional and planetary
boundaries for environment, and social justice.
This paper reviewed the heterogeneous corpus
of assessing CE at macro-level, to find best prac-
tice and what is needed for comprehensive CE
assessments. To create grounded rigour, a PRISMA-
inspired method created a corpus of 165 studies,
which was reviewed by the mixed-methods com-
bination of meta-analysis; taxonomy; and integrative
review. Findings expand the understanding of com-
prehensiveness of CE assessments, aiding CE know-
ledge accumulation across regions and scales.
Synthesizing the body of literature revealed a 5-
step procedure (see figure 11) for creating assessments
with better comparisons, benchmarking and CE tar-
gets. The 5-steps include: (a) a clear definition of CE
and (b) measurements corresponding to CE dimen-
sions as proxy-indicators. Both (a) and (b) are com-
bined into (c) an assessment framework, that allows
(d) comparisons and benchmarking between regions.
This results in (e) a reliable prognosis with recom-
mendations and CE targets to improve CE at macro-
level. A pressing problem found from current assess-
ments is the absence of a widely accepted CE defini-
tion that clarifies how to comprehensively assess the
macro-level.
This paper also found three types of monitor-
ing CE performance. Absolute performance monit-
ors resources to set priorities. Efficiency performance
monitors CE processes on capacity and optimization.
Lastly, policy performance identifies and compares
strategies improving CE, arguably this may include
cultural aspects.
14
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
A policy on localizing the CE seems to be miss-
ing. Such policy requires local CE resource-and-
waste targets and CE processes managed within scale-
boundaries (as drafted in table 2). Scale boundaries
are set on five macro-level scales (XL, L, M, S and XS).
This classification also helps to compare and bench-
mark between regions. Comparing and benchmark-
ing is not exclusively for macro-level, therefore scales
were also proposed for meso-level (ecosystem, sup-
plychain, and eco-park) and micro-level (business,
single-process, object, and consumer).
While this paper did not review micro- and meso-
levels studies, it is presumed that the 5-step proced-
ure, three types of performance monitoring, and clas-
sifying scales are also applicable at these levels.
The review found different self-proclaimed com-
prehensive assessment frameworks. Resource assess-
ments cluster and aggregate to assess by metrics,
system-boundaries, uses, or emergy. Although their
comprehensiveness is sometimes dubious, they cre-
ate insightful hierarchies of resources. The meta-
analysis revealed the ReSOLVE-framework as relat-
ively comprehensive and weighted in monitoring CE
processes; whereas R-frameworks seemed rather lim-
ited to waste-management.
Many knowledge gaps were still found in the
large corpus of macro-level CE assessments. Under-
studied resources are accumulated stock and non-
solids (e.g. manure, wastewater with micro-plastics,
and methane). Understudied CE processes are refuse,
virtualize, share, reuse, longevity and regeneration;
but the ReSOLVE-framework includes them. There
are arguably even more relevant CE strategies, such
as consumer behaviour and culture. Measurement-
data and therefore indicators seem to be missing for
these CE processes. Understudied regions are found
outside Europe and China, and at the nano-scale.
Regional self-sufficiency, resilience and stability is
understudied by lack of CE targets to localize CE,
while this would create building blocks towards a
global CE.
A limitation of literature reviews is they only
expand knowledge through inductive reasoning. Fur-
ther study beyond this review could extend know-
ledge and help society with better comprehensive CE
assessments. This starts with conceptually redefining
CE for regions, and its dimensions translated into a
comprehensive assessment framework (steps (a) and
(c) in of the 5-step procedure). Then, this study and
the new framework could be empirically validated
through steps (b)–(e). From here, regional stakehold-
ers can take appropriate actions, set CE targets and
iterate to improve CE in the region.
Data availability statement
All data that support the findings of this study are
included within the article (and any supplementary
files).
Credit author statement
Bart van Bueren: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Formal analysis, Data Curation, Writing—Original
Draft, Writing Review & Editing, Visualization. Usha
Iyer-Raniga, Mark Leenders and Kevin Argus: Super-
vision, Writing Review & Editing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ORCID iDs
Bart J A Van Bueren https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
9049-7334
Usha Iyer-Raniga https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
3088-8739
Mark A A M Leenders https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-6488-8542
Kevin Argus https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9727-
2958
References
[1] Elkington J 1997 Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom
line of 21st century business Capstone
[2] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) 2021
Summary for policymakers Climate Change 2021: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC
[3] Raworth K 2017 Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think
like a 21st-century Economist (London: Random House
Business Books) ISBN 1847941370
[4] EC (European Commission) 2015 Closing the loop-An EU
action plan for the Circular Economy COM (2015) 614 Final
European Union
[5] EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation) 2013 Towards the
circular economy (available at: www.ellenmacarthur
foundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-
MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-
vol.1.pdf (retrieved 28 February 2021))
[6] Geng Y, Fu J, Sarkis J and Xue B 2012 Towards a national
circular economy indicator system in China: an evaluation
and critical analysis J. Clean. Prod. 23 216–24
[7] Kirchherr J, Reike D and Hekkert M 2017 Conceptualizing
the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 127 221–32
[8] Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken N M P and Hultink E J
2017 The circular economy -a new sustainability paradigm?
J. Clean. Prod. 143 757–68
[9] Paiho S, Mäki E, Wessberg N, Paavola M, Tuominen P,
Antikainen M, Heikkilä J, Rozado C A and Jung N 2020
Towards circular cities -conceptualizing core aspects
Sustain. Cities Soc. 59 102143
[10] UNEP IRP (UN Environment Programme International
Resource Panel) 2017 Resource Efficiency: Potential and
Economic Implications ISBN: 978-92-807-3645-8
[11] Webster K 2013 What might we say about a circular
economy? Some temptations to avoid if possible World
Futures 69 542–54
[12] Korhonen J 2004 Industrial ecology in the strategic
sustainable development model: strategic applications of
industrial ecology J. Clean. Prod. 12 809–23
[13] Bhutta K S and Huq F 1999 Benchmarking Best Practices:
An Integrated Approach Benchmarking 63
15
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
[14] Camp R C 1989 Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best
Practices that Lead to Superior Performance (New York:
Productivity Press)
[15] Drucker P F 1999 Knowledge-worker productivity: the
biggest challenge Calif. Manage. Rev. 41 79–94
[16] Zhu D J and Huang X F 2005 Building up a model for
circular economy based on object, main body, policy
Naikai Acad. J. 486e93
[17] Geng Y and Doberstein B 2008 Developing the circular
economy in China: challenges and opportunities for
achieving ‘leapfrog development’ Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World
Ecol. 15 231–9
[18] Geng Y, Sarkis J and Bleischwitz R 2019 How to globalize
the circular economy Nature 565 153–5
[19] Ghisellini P, Cialani C and Ulgiati S 2016 A review on
circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced
interplay of environmental and economic systems J. Clean.
Prod. 114 11–32
[20] Haupt M, Vadenbo C and Hellweg S 2017 Do we have the
right performance indicators for the circular economy?:
insight into the Swiss waste management system J. Ind.
Ecol. 21 615–27
[21] Milios L 2018 Advancing to a circular economy: three
essential ingredients for a comprehensive policy mix
Sustainability Science 13 861–78
[22] Silvestri F, Spigarelli F and Tassinari M 2020 Regional
development of circular economy in the European Union: a
multidimensional analysis J. Clean. Prod. 255 120218
[23] Jiao W and Boons F 2014 Toward a research agenda for
policy intervention and facilitation to enhance industrial
symbiosis based on a comprehensive literature review J.
Clean. Prod. 67 14–25
[24] Saidani M, Yannou B, Leroy Y, Cluzel F and Kendall A 2019
A taxonomy of circular economy indicators J. Clean. Prod.
207 542–59
[25] Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Rocca R and Terzi S 2019 Circular
economy performance assessment methods: a systematic
literature review J. Clean. Prod. 229 440–53
[26] Cooper H M 1988 Organizing knowledge syntheses: a
taxonomy of literature reviews Knowl. Soc. 1104
[27] Humphrey S E 2011 What does a great meta-analysis look
like? Organ. Psychol. Rev. 199–103
[28] Elsbach K D and van Knippenberg D 2020 Creating
high-impact literature reviews: an argument for ‘integrative
reviews’ J. Manage. Stud. 57 1277–89
[29] Torraco R J 2005 Writing integrative literature reviews:
guidelines and examples Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 4356–67
[30] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J and Altman D G 2009
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses: the PRISMA-statement PLoS Med.
6e1000097
[31] Wohlin C 2014 Guidelines for snowballing in systematic
literature studies and a replication in software engineering
Proc. 18th Int. Conf. on Evaluation and Assessment in
Software Engineering pp 1–10
[32] Metabolic 2015 Transitioning Amsterdam to a circular city-
circular Buiksloterham -vision & ambition (available at:
www.metabolic.nl/publications (retrieved 28 February
2021))
[33] EuroStat 2020 Statistical regions in the European Union and
partner countries NUTS and statistical regions 2021
0.2785/72829 European Union
[34] CIA 2020 The world factbook (available at: www.cia.gov/
library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/
2119rank.html (accessed 28 February 2021))
[35] NPCC (National People’s Congress of China) 2008 Circular
economy promotion law of the People’s Republic of China
(available at: www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2008/09/circular-economy-law-cn-en-
final.pdf (retrieved 28 February 2021))
[36] EMF & Arup (Ellen MacArthur Foundation & Arup) 2019
City governments and their role in enabling a circular
economy transition (available at:
www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/our-work/approach/
government-and-cities (retrieved 28 February 2021)) EMF
[37] UNSDG (UN Sustainable Development Goals) 2016 The
sustainable development goals report (available at:
www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-
development-goals (accessed 28 February 2021)) (United
Nations)
[38] Erb K H, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Gingrich S, Bondeau A,
Fischer-Kowalski M and Haberl H 2009a Analyzing the
global human appropriation of net primary
production—processes, trajectories, implications. An
introduction Ecol. Econ. 69 250–9
[39] Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Lucht W and Haberl H 2009b
Embodied HANPP: mapping the spatial disconnect
between global biomass production and consumption Ecol.
Econ. 69 328–34
[40] Rockström J et al 2009 A safe operating space for humanity
Nature 461 472–5
[41] Singapore-Govermnent 2018 Zero Waste Masterplan.
Www.towardszerowaste.sg 978-981-14-2915-6 Ministry of
the Environment and Water Resources National
Environment Agency
[42] Krysovatyy A I, Zvarych I Y, Zvarych R Y and Zhyvko M A
2018 Preconditions for the tax environment of a alterglobal
development Comp. Econ. Res. 21 139–54
[43] Deloitte 2015 Study on Data for a Raw Material System
Analysis: Roadmap and Test of the Fully Operational MSA
for Raw Materials 30-CE-0612154/00-04 European
Commission
[44] EC (European Commission) 2018a On a EU monitoring-
framework for the circular economy; incl.: key indicators for a
monitoring framework SWD(2018) 17 final European
Commission
[45] EuroStat 2018 Circular material use rate Calculation Method
10.2785/132630 European Union
[46] Islam M T and Huda N 2019 Material flow analysis (MFA)
as a strategic tool in E-waste management: applications,
trends and future directions J. Environ. Manage.
244 344–61
[47] Smol M, Kulczycka J and Avdiushchenko A 2017 Circular
economy indicators in relation to eco-innovation in
European regions Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
19 669–78
[48] Werner T T, Ciacci L, Mudd G M, Reck B K and
Northey S A 2018 Looking down under for a circular
economy of indium Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 2055–62
[49] Golev A, Scott M, Erskine P D, Ali S H and Ballantyne G R
2014 Rare earths supply chains: current status, constraints
and opportunities Resour. Policy 41 52–59
[50] NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China) 2020 China
Statistical Abstracts (http://data.stats.gov.cn/english/
(accessed 28 February 2021))
[51] EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council)
2016 Indicators for a circular economy 978-3-8047-3680-1
[52] de Wit M, Hoogzaad J, Ramkumar S, Friedl H and
Douma A 2019 The circularity gap report 2019 Circle
Economy (www.circularity-gap.world/global)
[53] de Wit M, Haas W, Steenmeijer M, Vir´
ag D, van
Barneveld J and Verstraeten-Jochemsen J 2019 The
Circularity Gap report: Austria Circle Economy and BOKU
(www.circularity-gap.world/countries)
[54] de Wit M, Haigh L and von Daniels C 2020 The Circularity
Gap report: Netherlands Circle Economy (www.circularity-
gap.world/countries)
[55] de Wit M, Hoogzaad J and von Daniels C 2020 The
Circularity Gap report 2020 (incl. Technical methodology
document) Circle Economy (www.circularity-gap.world/
global)
[56] Haas W, Krausmann F, Wiedenhofer D and Heinz M 2015
How circular is the global economy?: an assessment of
material flows, waste production, and recycling in the
European Union and the world in 2005 J. Ind. Ecol.
19 765–77
16
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
[57] Tukker A, Bulavskaya T, Giljum S, de Koning A, Lutter S,
Simas M, Stadler K and Wood R 2014 The global resource
footprint of nations. Carbon, water, land and materials
embodied in trade and final consumption calculated with
EXIOBASE 2.1. ISBN: 978-3-200-03637-6
[58] GFN (Global Footprint Network) 2020
(www.footprintnetwork.org (accessed 28 February 2021))
[59] Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K,
Larson J, Lazarus E, Morales J C, Wackernagel M and
Galli A 2013 Accounting for demand and supply of the
biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the National Footprint
Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework Ecol.
Indic. 24 518–33
[60] Geng Y, Zhu Q, Doberstein B and Fujita T 2009
Implementing China’s circular economy concept at the
regional level: a review of progress in Dalian, China Waste
Manage. 29 996–1002
[61] Gao Z and Han Y 2012 The coordination development
between economy and environment within whole nation
and Xinjiang based on the evaluation and forecast Adv.
Mater. Res. 524–527 3477–82
[62] Garcia-Bernabeu A, Hilario-Caballero A, Pla-Santamaria D
and Salas-Molina F 2020 A process oriented MCDM
approach to construct a circular economy composite index
Sustainability 12 618
[63] Kang Y, Zhang R, Xavior A, Cai J, You L and Zhao L 2017
The construction of early-warning index system in regional
circular economy of China MATEC Web Conf. 100
[64] Liu D K 2014 Research on the evaluation system of circular
economy development of three gorges reservoir region
Appl. Mech. Mater. 446–447 1375–80
[65] Metabolic 2018 Monitoring for a circular metropole
region, Amsterdam (available at: www.metabolic.nl/
publications (retrieved 28 February 2021))
[66] Metabolic 2020 Cicular boulder: pioneering steps towards a
zero-waste and climate neutral city (available at: www.meta
bolic.nl/publications (retrieved 28 February 2021))
[67] Ouyang Z H and Ma J Y 2014 The measure platform for
circular economy based on the cloud computing and IOT
Environment, Energy and Sustainable Development -Proc. of
ICFEEE 2013
[68] Qian W Y, Dang Y G, Xiong P P and Xu N 2011 Warning
model system of circular economy development and its
application Xitong Gongcheng Lilun Yu Shijian/System Eng.
Theory Pract. 31 10006788
[69] Metabolic 2020a Kopenhagen: exploring circular solutions
in the waste system (available at: www.metabolic.nl/
publications (retrieved 28 February 2021))
[70] Huang S L and Hsu W L 2003 Materials flow analysis and
emergy evaluation of Taipei’s urban construction Landsc.
Urban Plan. 63
[71] Santagata R, Zucaro A, Viglia S, Ripa M, Tian X and
Ulgiati S 2020 Assessing the sustainability of urban
eco-systems through Emergy-based circular economy
indicators Ecol. Indic. 109 105859
[72] Sun L, Li H, Dong L, Fang K, Ren J, Geng Y, Fujii M,
Zhang W, Zhang N and Liu Z 2017 Eco-benefits assessment
on urban industrial symbiosis based on material flows
analysis and emergy evaluation approach: a case of Liuzhou
city, China Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 119 78–88
[73] Geng Y, Sarkis J, Ulgiati S and Zhang P 2013 Measuring
China’s circular economy Science 340
[74] Haberl H, Erb K H, Krausmann F, Berecz S, Ludwiczek N,
Martínez-Alier J, Musel A and Schaffartzik A 2013 Using
embodied HANPP to analyze teleconnections in the global
land system: conceptual considerations Geogr. Tidsskr. 109
[75] Haberl H, Erb K H, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A,
Plutzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W and Fischer-Kowalski M
2007 Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation
of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104 (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/
10.1073/pnas.0704243104)
[76] Haberl H, Steinberger J K, Plutzar C, Erb K H, Gaube V,
Gingrich S and Krausmann F 2012 Natural and
socioeconomic determinants of the embodied human
appropriation of net primary production and its
relation to other resource use indicators Ecol. Indic.
23 222–31
[77] Guo B, Geng Y, Ren J, Zhu L, Liu Y and Sterr T 2017
Comparative assessment of circular economy development
in China’s four megacities: the case of Beijing, Chongqing,
Shanghai and Urumqi J. Clean. Prod. 162 234–46
[78] Salguero-Puerta L, Leyva-Díaz J C, Cortés-García F J and
Molina-Moreno V 2019 Sustainability indicators
concerning waste management for implementation of the
circular economy model on the University of Lome (Togo)
campus Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16 2234
[79] Wang N, Lee J C K, Zhang J, Chen H and Li H 2018
Evaluation of Urban circular economy development: an
empirical research of 40 cities in China J. Clean. Prod.
180 876–87
[80] EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation) 2015 Delivering the
circular economy -a toolkit for policymakers (available at:
www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/
toolkit-for-policymakers (accessed 28 February 2021))
[81] Christis M, Athanassiadis A and Vercalsteren A 2019
Implementation at a city level of circular economy
strategies and climate change mitigation—the case of
Brussels J. Clean. Prod. 218 511–20
[82] de Ferreira A C and Fuso-Nerini F 2019 A framework for
implementing and tracking circular economy in cities: the
case of Porto Sustainability 11 1813
[83] Prendeville S, Cherim E and Bocken N 2018 Circular cities:
mapping six cities in transition Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
26 171–94
[84] Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrell E and Hanemaaijer A 2017
Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product
Chain 2544 Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency
[85] Reike D, Vermeulen W J and Witjes S 2018 The circular
economy: new or refurbished as CE 3.0? -Exploring
controversies in the conceptualization of the circular
economy through a focus on history and resource value
retention options Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 135 246–64
[86] Korhonen J, Honkasalo A and Seppälä J 2018 Circular
economy: the concept and its limitations Ecol. Econ.
143 37–46
[87] Morseletto P 2020 Targets for a circular economy Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 153 104553
[88] Wang H, Schandl H, Wang X, Ma F, Yue Q, Wang G,
Wang Y, Wei Y, Zhang Z and Zheng R 2020 Measuring
progress of China’s circular economy Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 163 105070
[89] Avdiushchenko A and Zajaç P 2019 Circular economy
indicators as a supporting tool for European regional
development policies Sustainability 11 3025
[90] Gao C, Gao C, Song K and Fang K 2020 Pathways towards
regional circular economy evaluated using material flow
analysis and system dynamics Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
154 104527
[91] Politico 2018 Ranking how EU countries do with the
circular economy (available at: www.politico.eu/article/
ranking-how-eu-countries-do-with-the-circular-economy)
(Accessed 2 April 2020)
[92] Scarpellini S, Portillo-Tarragona P, Aranda-Usón A and
Llena-Macarulla F 2019 Definition and measurement of
the circular economy’s regional impact J. Environ. Plan.
Manage. 62 2211–37
[93] Tang Y and Li J 2010 Material flow analysis on venous
industrial park -taking tianjin ziya circular economy park
for examplep Proc. 2010 IEEE 17th Int. Conf. on IE and
EM pp 1828–31
[94] Boulding K E 1966 The economics of the coming spaceship
earth (https://doi.org/ 10.1177/002200275700100203)
17
Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 103001 B J A Van Bueren et al
[95] Daly H E 1991 Steady-State Economics: With New Essays
(Washington, DC: Island Press)
[96] Wilts H, von Gries N and Bahn-Walkowiak B 2016 From
waste management to resource efficiency -the need for
policy mixes Sustainability 8622
[97] Marsden G, Frick K T, May A D and Deakin E 2011 How
do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A
study of 30 policies in Northern Europe and North
America Transp. Policy 18 501–12
[98] Bagozzi R P 2011 Measurement and meaning in
information systems and organizational research:
methodological and philosophical foundations MIS Q.
35 261
[99] Darra A and Kavouras M 2019 An ontological framework
for spatial socioeconomic units The Practice of Spatial
Analysis: Essays in Memory of Professor Pavlos Kanaroglou
(Cham: Springer International Publishing) pp 49–67
[100] Sartori G 1984 Guidelines for concept analysis Social
science concepts: A systematic analysis
[101] Ravallion M 2010 Mashup indices of development. The
World Bank World Bank Research Observer 27 1–32
[102] Fernandez-Mena H, Gaudou B, Pellerin S, MacDonald G K
and Nesme T 2020 Flows in Agro-food networks (FAN): an
agent-based model to simulate local agricultural material
flows Agric. Syst. 180 102718
[103] EC (European Commision) 2018 Report on critical raw
materials and the circular economy SWD(2018)36Final
[104] Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Foran B, Lobefaro L
and Geschke A 2012 International trade drives biodiversity
threats in developing nations Nature 486 109–12
[105] Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli P A, Castellani V and
Sala S 2017 Environmental impacts of food consumption
in Europe J. Clean. Prod. 140 753–65
[106] EC-JCR (European Commission) 2012 Life cycle indicators
for Resources, Products and Waste: basket-of-products
JRC74651 Joint Research Centre
[107] METI (Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry of Japan)
2004 Handbook on Resource Recycling Legislation and 3R
Trends
[108] Franklin-Johnson E, Figge F and Canning L 2016 Resource
duration as a managerial indicator for circular economy
performance J. Clean. Prod. 133 589–98
18
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
In this article, we argue that integrative literature reviews are among the most useful vehicles for advancing knowledge and furthering research in a topic domain. Integrative literature reviews are strongly anchored in a representative description of a field, but add new insights via a critical analysis and synthesis of the field’s literature. Based on this definition, we explicate the ways that scholars can (1) define the “space” for an integrative review (i.e., how they can justify and bound an integrative review), and (2) synthesize insights gained from the review to develop a new perspective or point of view on the literature. We illustrate these points with several of the most highly‐cited manuscripts published in the Academy of Management Annals. Finally, we close by arguing why these points make integrative reviews most useful for advancing knowledge and furthering research in the area of management.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this contribution is to develop a Circular Economy Composite indicator to benchmark EU countries performance. Europe is at the forefront of the global transition towards a sustainable and circular economy. To this end, the European Commission has launched in 2015 a Circular Economy Action Plan including a monitoring framework to measure progress and to assess the effectiveness of initiatives towards the circular economy in the European Union (EU) and Member States. Still, this monitoring framework lacks a composite indicator at the national level to aggregate the circular economy dimensions into a single summary indicator. Although there is a wide range of sustainability composite indicators, no aggregate circular economy index exits to this date. We use a multi-criteria approach to construct a circular economy composite index based on TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preferences by Similarity to Ideal Solutions) methodology. In addition, we introduce a novel aggregation methodology for building a composite indicator where different levels of compensability for the distances to the ideal and anti-ideal (or negative-ideal) values of each indicator are considered. In order to illustrate the advantages of this proposal, we have applied it to evaluate the Circular Economy performance of EU Member States for the year 2016. This proposal can be a valuable tool for identifying areas in which the countries need to concentrate their efforts to boost their circular economy performance.
Article
Full-text available
The transition to a circular economy requires actions and policies. In the praxis of governance, a common way to steer the transition to a different state proceeds through the setting of targets. Thus far, no study has investigated circular economy targets in a systematic way. To bridge this gap, this study examines which targets can facilitate the transition towards a circular economy. The analysis focuses both on existing and new targets; the latter complement existing targets which are limited to a few discrete cases addressing only partially the goal of a more circular economy. A framework based on 10 common circular economy strategies (i.e. recover, recycling, repurpose, remanufacture, refurbish, repair, re-use, reduce, rethink, refuse) is applied to scrutinise the selected targets. The study clarifies that existing targets for recovery and recycling do not necessarily promote a circular economy, though they are the most commonly applied targets so far. Because of lack of efficacy of recovery and recycling, targets should instead favour other more powerful circular economy strategies. In relation to these, the study looks into new and existing targets showing how they can reduce waste, increase efficiency, close production loops, and maximise retention of the economic value of materials and products. In particular, the study proposes an expanded set of brand new targets for the transition to a circular economy together with a fresh view on targets aimed at scholars and decision-makers alike.
Article
Full-text available
Agro-food networks are characterized by complex material exchanges among farms, processors, consumers, andwaste managers involved in fertilization, food, feed and bioenergy production. Better coordination of materialexchanges at the local scale can facilitate more efficient resource use. Here, we present a new agent-based model,“Flows in Agro-food Networks”(FAN), which simulates the processing and exchange of fertilizers, feed, food andwastes among farms and multiple upstream or downstream partners (feed and fertilizer suppliers, food in-dustries, waste processors, and anaerobic digesters) in small farming regions. FAN includes a series of en-vironmental indicators that can be used to assess alternative scenarios in terms of ecosystem services, nutrientcycling, and resource autonomy. We use a French case study to demonstrate FAN’s dynamics and to explore thesensitivity of key parameters. We show a strong influence of spatial distance between agents, their disposition toexchange, and their preference for specific materials on local agro-food network simulations. FAN is powerfultheoretical tool to explore and assess opportunities for a circular economy in small farming regions and tounravel interactions between recycling, environmental performance and food production.
Article
Full-text available
Circular Economy (CE) concepts and tools are getting increasing attention with regard to their implementation in agricultural, urban and industrial sectors towards innovative business models to optimize resource use, process performances and development policies. However, conventional biophysical and economic indicators hardly fit CE characteristics. Life cycle assessment, footprint and economic cost-benefit indicators, do not fully capture the specificity of a closed loop CE framework, characterized by feedbacks and resource use minimization and quality assessment. Commonly used mono-dimensional indicators seem unable to successfully relate the process performance and the use of ecosystem services and natural capital, in that they do not assess the environmental quality and sustainability (renewability, fit to use, recycle potential) of resources and the complexity of interaction between agro/industrial/urban environments and socioeconomic systems, and translate into an incomplete and inadequate picture, far from an effective CE perspective. In this study, Emergy Accounting method (EMA) is used to design an improved approach to CE systemic aspects, focusing on the importance of new indicators capable of capturing both resource generation (upstream), product (downstream) and systems dimensions. This conceptual scheme is built around the case study of the City of Napoli's economy (Campania region, Southern Italy) considering the surrounding agro-industrial area with its smaller urban settlements. In order to design a reasonable and reliable CE framework, a number of already existing and innovative processes is analyzed and discussed, through a bottom-up procedure capable to account for CE development options based on the recovery of locally available and still usable resources (i.e., conversion of waste cooking oil into biodiesel, conversion of slaughterhouse residues to power and chemicals, recovery and conversion of agro-waste residues, amongst others).The result highlighted that EMA was capable to keep track of the improvement generated by the implemented circularity patterns in terms of reduced total emergy of the system. Moreover, EMA indicators suggested that, in any case, the CE business framework should be intended as a transitional strategy towards more feasible paradigms.
Article
Full-text available
The circular economy aims to reduce the volume of waste generated in the world, transforming it into resources. The concept of indicator of circular economy was introduced to evaluate the improvement obtained regarding efficiency in terms of reduction, reuse and recycling of waste generated on the campus of the University of Lome (Togo). These indicators showed that 59.5% of the waste generated on the campus in 2018 could be introduced into the circular economy paradigm through composting, and 27.0% of the energy consumed could be replaced by clean energy obtained from biogas. The entire plastic fraction can be introduced into the circular economy paradigm by reusing plastic bottles and selling the rest in the port of the city. Thus, the income obtained could range from €15.5/day in 2018 to €34.5/day in 2027. Concerning old tires, 1.5% of the rubber needed to pave the entire roadway of the campus could be replaced by the waste generated by the tires currently existing there. Consequently, waste management on the campus could be controlled thanks to these indicators, and this could serve as a model for the rest of the country.
Article
As the largest user of primary materials globally China has made a commitment to rebuild its economy to a circular model and to enhance the efficiency of material use, which is spelled out in the Circular Economy Promotion Law. Measuring progress of the new policy requires datasets, metrics and indicators that monitor the performance of the economy regarding the scale of primary materials use, waste flows, and recycling and circularity. We employ material flow analysis, including measures for inputs and outputs, to assess progress of the circular economy in China over time. We find that circularity increased from 2.7% to 5.8% between 1995 and 2015, from an input socioeconomic cycling rate perspective. End of life waste recycling improved from 7.2% to 17% over the same time frame and occurred against the backdrop of a strong physical growth dynamic during this whole period. We present a set of policy indicators and situate them in the context of the Chinese indicator sets for a Green Development Indicator System, the Ecological Civilization Construction Assessment Target System and the Sustainable Development Goals. Moving from an economy based on infrastructure and capital investment production for the world market, to a consumption-based economy, may increase the potential for circular economy in China in the future. The policy indicators can also be used to set targets and create ambition for a swift transition to closed loop urban and industrial systems in China.
Article
Already in agricultural societies issues like the efficient use of natural resources, recycling of goods and materials, and minimization of food waste were key principles. Current circular economy initiatives are building firmly on these same principles. Often circular economy actions concentrate on material efficiency ignoring other possible flows. This paper conceptualizes circular cities by reviewing their constraints, characteristics and connections. Even a proper definition for a “circular city” is missing. After analyzing circular economy (CE) challenges and opportunities in cities, the paper concentrates on characteristics of circular city concepts, namely definition, transition process, target setting and circularity indicators. These are the core issues a city has to define when targeting circularity. In addition, the paper addresses city streams, their interlinkages and boundaries which a city has to analyze when deciding about the concrete actions and means. Adequate tools are needed in this phase to analyze circular cities. Potential Nexus and expert tools were identified in the paper. The paper ends up with a synthesis of steps cities need to take when targeting circularity.
Article
Within the framework of EU policies and measures to develop the Circular Economy (CE) model, the paper sheds light on a relevant and important topic not so well debated in the literature, i.e. the adoption of CE at the regional level. Our key research question is: how do European Regions differ in terms of implementation of the CE? In order to address this question, we build two composite indicators - the Circular Economy Static Index (CESI) and the Circular Economy Dynamic Index (CEDI) - that permitted both a static and a dynamic evaluation of the CE performance of European regions (NUTS 2). This double reading of CE performances has allowed us to classify the European regions into four groups, on the basis of the results of our analysis. The “Never give up” group (1) is characterized by above-median performance for both the composite indicators; this group includes some of the most developed and innovative regions in Europe (including France: Île de France, Belgium: Brabant Wallon, Antwerpen and Région de Bruxelles, Germany: Berlin and Hamburg, and Spain: Catalunya). The group “Satiated and sleepy regions” (2), namely those regions where CESI is performing well, but the CEDI shows low values, incorporates many of the richest regions in Europe, for example, Freiburg, Germany and the Comunidad de Madrid, Spain and includes some of the more developed regions in Italy. The “The best is yet to come” group (3), is characterized by low values for CESI and high performance in CEDI, most of those falling into these groups are regions from Eastern Europe. The “We don’t mind” group (4), is composed of the regions with modest values on both Indexes, and is characterized by the presence of very low performing regions, including the majority of Italian regions. The novelty of this approach with respect to literature and the policy implications of our findings are then discussed.
Article
Circular Economy (CE) offers insights to sustainable production and consumption by integrating environmental analysis to the socioeconomic system. To promote sustainable development in Guangdong Province, this study integrates System Dynamics (SD) and Material Flow Analysis (MFA) into CE theories to establish a framework to comprehensively evaluate regional economies. Nine development scenarios are further developed to provide strategic recommendations for the development of CE in Guangdong. The results of these scenarios show that the CE of Guangdong is most effective among the nine scenarios when the birth rate is reduced by about 2‰, the growth rates of the primary and secondary industries are reduced by 2%, and the growth rate of the tertiary industry increased by 2%. The biological substance consumption, fossil fuel consumption, building mineral consumption, industrial exhaust emissions and solid waste emissions are 88.39 Mt, 86.63 Mt, 108.16 Mt, 280.90 Mt, and 69.02 Mt respectively. The total material input (TMI) of 10,000 RMB of GDP and the total material output (TMO) of 10,000 RMB of GDP are 49.64 kt/10,000 RMB and 42.70 kt/10,000 RMB in 2022 respectively. Based on the status quo and simulated results, this study acknowledges the importance of population control and highlights the vigorous development of tertiary industry in economic construction. Policy interventions such as building pilot demonstrative smart cities and industrial parks would facilitate long-term sustainability of urban systems.