Content uploaded by Sebastien Bourdin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sebastien Bourdin on Sep 15, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paper accepted in EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
www.sebastienbourdin.com sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
Circularities in territories: opportunities
& challenges
Sebastien BOURDIN, EM Normandie
Danielle GALLIANO, INRAE
Amélie GONCALVES, INRAE
Introduction
The need to change production and consumption patterns
The dominant economic model is linear. Since the industrial revolution, it has become firmly
established in production and consumption patterns. Characterised by the overexploitation of
resources, as well as the massive production of products (goods and services) and waste, it
consists of extracting raw materials for the manufacture of products distributed and sold to
consumers who use and throw them away as waste at the end of their life cycle. This process
requires many resources and primary energy, particularly fossil fuels that emit GHGs
(greenhouse gas).
Global economic growth has undeniably enabled the creation and accumulation of wealth to
meet people’s basic needs for food, shelter, travel or recreation and to raise their general
standard of living (OECD, 2018). However, the sustainability of this linear growth economic
system is now being strongly questioned (Lieder and Rashid, 2016). Indeed, the scarcity of
natural and energy resources, as a result of their overexploitation, is leading to an increase in
the price of raw materials, creating tensions in a world with a rapidly growing population and
an increasingly globalised economy (Preston, 2012; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015).
Rising commodity prices and increasing climate change disrupt local markets and production
systems, affecting socio-economic actors in the territories.
In a context where environmental challenges require consuming less resources and a drastic
reduction in polluting emissions, several public action mechanisms have been put in place,
particularly by the European Union (EU). In a 2005 statement, the European Commission
committed member countries to ensure the ecological transition of economies towards a more
resource-efficient and less environmentally damaging system (European Commission, 2005).
The aim is to decouple economic growth from resource use and reduce negative environmental
impacts while ensuring the sustainability and competitiveness of the EU economy. This was
reflected in the adoption in 2008 of the energy-climate package followed by the 2030 climate
and energy framework. This commits Europe to reduce overall GHG emissions by 40% from
the 1990 levels by 2030, increasing the share of renewable energy sources to 32% and
improving energy efficiency by at least 32.5% (European Commission, 2014). More recently,
Paper accepted in EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
www.sebastienbourdin.com sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
the Green Deal for Europe was adopted to accelerate the transition toward a resource-efficient
and climate-neutral society by 2050 (European Commission, 2019 and 2019).
Towards a circular economic transformation
In order to radically change production and consumption patterns, a new economic model has
gained popularity: the circular economy. As the circular economy concept is attracting growing
interest in the public debate, several political actors and the scientific community have
appropriated this notion, in particular, to contribute to its definition and shedding light on its
definition modes, conditions and tools of implementation. Today, there is still no internationally
recognised academic definition of the circular economy concept (Murray et al., 2017; Khoronen
et al., 2018), and many definitions coexist in the literature (Kirchherr et al., 2017).
The term circular economy was first used in 1990 by economists David W. Pearce and R. Kerry
Turner in their book, Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment (Pearce and Turner,
1989). Ghisellini et al. (2016) show that the ideas entangled within the circular economy
concept come from several disciplines, such as ecological economics, environmental
economics and industrial ecology. The authors identify significant divergences in the
theoretical frameworks mobilised in the international literature by the scientific communities,
who appropriate the concept differently. The circular economy is sometimes equated with the
green economy or the bioeconomy, and often even relegated to the sole issue of waste treatment.
Such an abundance of definitions and notions surrounding the circular economy concept leads
to some confusion in its understanding, at the risk of a possible decline (Kirchherr et al., 2017).
However, they all agree on application principles, highlighting the need for a new virtuous
economic model opposed to the linear economic system. The circular economy promotes a
more sustainable and environmentally responsible model of economic development, which
aims to reconcile economic growth with environmental protection. This economy aims to
change the practices of the linear system (to extract, produce, consume and then throw away
before extracting again).
Integrating the territorial dimension of circular economy
In the context of socio-ecological and energy transition, many countries present public policies
promoting the circular economy as levers for change and evolution of practices and technical,
economic and organisational models. There is a strong challenge in producing new coordination
and new modes of national and international governance (Kern et al., 2020). But states are also
launching national circular economy plans that are implemented at the local level. The changes
brought about by the implementation of the circular economy can be significant: changes in
production models, the end of external dependence on resources (territorial autonomy) and the
optimisation of the territory’s resources.
The local nature of the actions implemented is distinguished by a multiplicity of territories and
deployment spaces, which are often unequal according to the strategies of the actors and their
scale of intervention (Torre and Dermine-Brullot, 2019). These actions take place in rural
(Salvia et al., 2018) or urban areas (Sanchez Levoso et al., 2020), within a company or an
industrial zone, at the level of administrative territories, or even nationally (Ghisellini et al.,
2016). This question of the territorial and spatial inscription of circular activities or actions is
newly posed in the literature as a major issue for considering a new mode of territorial
development and wellbeing (Cesaretti et al., 2017) around the circular economy.
Paper accepted in EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
www.sebastienbourdin.com sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
The necessary territorialisation of the circular economy thus refers to the reasoned use of
territorial resources and the control of the circulation of flows (Bourdin and Torre, 2020). It
concerns the extent of the geographical limits beyond which any circular economy practice is
compromised by the appearance of negative environmental externalities, due in particular to
the transport of products, resources or waste. It also concerns the capacity of actors to coordinate
within a territory to implement the circular economy. This raises the question of the
organisation and coordination of actors, which plays a decisive role in the territoriality of the
exchange links at work, whether they are technical, social or economic.
Contents of special issue
The widely debated issue of locally rooted activities (territorialisation) is gaining renewed
interest because of the development of initiatives aimed at creating new links between the actors
of a territory for transition(s). These links may be between waste and by-products producers
and those who use it as a resource (circular economy, territorial ecology), between actors that
value biomass or environmental innovations (circular bioeconomy, eco-industrial networks) or
links between production and consumption activities (local-based forestry chains, agrifood
systems). These public and private initiatives highlight their potential economic, social and
environmental virtues and sustainability, and their ability to strengthen geographical proximity
and its potential outputs. Whether they are food, non-food chain or circular economy
approaches, their purpose is to build circulations and circularities in the territories to promote
the relocation of economic activities or even achieve territorial autonomy in certain areas. They
also have two points in common: that of linking stakeholders and activities that were not
necessarily previously linked and that of using the circulation of material and immaterial flows
and natural resources (food, wood, biomass, energy) as a vector for structuring these new
coordinations. Therefore, we can wonder how these initiatives reconfigure—or not—the
mechanisms and dynamics of production, innovation, local anchoring, inter-territoriality and
spatial distribution of activities. The aim of this special issue is to question the relationship
between circularity and territory and provide an overview of the links between territories and
circular economy through literature reviews and case studies.
The first contribution to the special issue (Veyssière, Laperche & Blanquart) offers a review of
the literature on the link between the circular economy (CE) and territorial development. Based
on the observation that the circular economy is more often studied at the firm level than at the
territorial level, the authors propose a systematic literature review that provides an overview of
the links between the circular economy and the territorial development process (TDP). The
authors consider the latter as the product of the interaction between three dimensions:
coordination modalities between the stakeholders, institutional factors and the resources. They
study how the TDP is addressed by the literature on circular economy—especially in the fields
of industrial ecology and industrial symbiosis—by analysing how these three dimensions are
taken into account. They show that those dimensions are well represented in the literature and
that the quality of coordination, the nature of governance and resources could differentiate
several TDPs. An important criterion of differentiation could be how CE is implemented. The
authors identify a recurring debate about whether CE implementation should be planned or be
the product of self-organised and business-driven dynamics. However, the effective
implementation of CE in territories seems most often based on an intermediary model. The
authors also highlight a strong focus of the literature on coordination and institutional factors.
Resource creation as a step of territorial development remains unclear and rarely studied,
namely because of a persistent vagueness about what a resource is.
Paper accepted in EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
www.sebastienbourdin.com sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
The next section, comprising three contributions, focuses on the question of the modes of
coordination of actors in order to build circularities.
The article of Iceri and Lardon proposes to use circularities to make the contours and dynamics
of territorial initiatives more intelligible. They consider that it is important for researchers from
different disciplines to find ways to capture the dynamics, meaning capture the interactions, the
internal movements in a territory, regardless of the stimulus (endogenic, exogenic, physical,
immaterial, cognitive, etc.). But there is also an operational stake, that of enabling local actors
to analyse their action and its effects on the territory. To do this, they analyse two collective
initiatives of local food systems in France and Brazil. They use complexity theory and different
methods to define the components of a collective action and the interrelationships between these
components, as well as the circularities (seven are distinguished) within the initiative and
between it and its environment. Based on the notion of circularities and extending it well beyond
the material dimension, this work proposes an original methodology for analysing the trajectory
of an initiative in a territory and its contribution to the dynamics of territorial development.
The article by Lenglet and Peyrache-Gadeau also deals with the analysis of structuring localised
collective dynamics, this time in the wood sector. They present an analysis of forest resource
valuation systems, with valuation defined as “the combination of two inseparable processes of
evaluation (judgement, legitimation) and valorisation (production of added value)”. Like other
articles in this issue, they propose a broader vision of circularity (beyond the material
dimension) by offering an analysis of the circular valuation modes applied to the case of local
timber labels. They show that these labels are the result of interrelationships between linear
valuation logics specific to the sector but also of circularities resulting from the actors’ quest
for the development of a closed-loop economy and the desire to promote a valuation of the
wood resource that is beneficial to the territory. In this case, circularities appear as a component
of a collective dynamic for the construction of a new relationship between territories and local
actors with their forest resource and its value.
Niang, Torre and Bourdin aim to characterise the coordination of actors and governance at work
in a local, circular economy project. Based on a social network analysis approach applied to
territorial innovation systems and governance, they analyse the cooperation and synergies in
the project, in particular through the quantity and type of links between actors and their
evolution over time. These links can be both material and immaterial, reflecting the authors’
consideration of this double dimension of CE. Specifically, the results show a different
configuration of the networks of material and immaterial flows. The authors highlight the key
role of intermediary actors. They occupy a central place in the network and link groups of
actors. The authors do not conclude that these are ideal network configurations for the
development of the circular economy, but that they are the result of the interplay of actors and
the local territorial configuration. Even if the existence of certain intermediary actors seems
important, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all network structure and mode of governance to build
the circular economy.
The next two papers seek to analyse the nature and forms of resource mobilisation at a meso-
economic level to implement circularities.
Still using the topic of the implementation of the circular economy, Gonçalves, Galliano and
Triboulet examine the resources necessary for the structuring of circularities and the means by
which the project leaders obtain them. They thus shed light on the meso-economic dynamics of
circularity construction. By mobilising the literature on the economics of (eco-)innovation
specifically, they analyse cases of collective methanisation in rural areas. They show that,
Paper accepted in EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
www.sebastienbourdin.com sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
although located in rural areas, these projects and their promoters manage to find a number of
necessary resources in their local environment, in particular by strongly mobilising their
personal networks and by federating various types of actors who were not linked before the
project. The intangible resources may be more distant, but the project leaders manage to access
them, thanks notably to the key role of institutional actors, especially public ones. If the
cooperation between the different types of actors can be improved, these collective projects and
the circularities they promote are strongly anchored in their territories and seem to draw new
green innovation patterns.
Gallego-Bono and Tapia-Baranda also show how the circular economy brings new dynamics
of innovation based on new cooperation and the enhancement of local resources. They use the
example of the sugarcane industry, which they analyse by mobilising the economics of
innovation and the literature on industrial ecology. They show that the linear logic of valuing
agricultural resources in Latin America leads to the fragmentation of the networks of actors.
The development of local clusters around industrial ecology appears to be a possible vector for
the construction of collective actions through “transformative territorial coalitions”. Following
the example of other authors on this issue, they insist on the role proximity plays in building
these clusters, stressing here the key role of geographical proximity but also the sharing of
common values and objectives (ethical proximity). Comparing a classic sugarcane development
network and a transformative network based on the principles of territorial industrial ecology,
they show how the latter, by relying on actors with knowledge that had been marginalised until
then, was able to create a collective innovation dynamic that was not only technical but also
social (a form of innovation that is traditionally rarely dealt with in the industrial ecology
literature). It is not, however, an inward-looking network, as the authors show the importance
of links with more distant actors who share the vision of the cluster actors.
The last two articles also address the issue of resources but from the perspective of the effects
of the circular economy and the associated socio-economic system on them, and on agriculture
specifically.
Marty et al. show how the development of the bioeconomy, and the choices in terms of biomass
valorisation that it engenders, strongly influence the ‘socio-economic metabolism’ of a
territory. More specifically, they study the effects of the development of methanisation on the
production and allocation of biomass of agricultural origin (BAO) and on the entire territorial
agricultural system. Based on a metabolic approach belonging to the bioeconomics (funds and
flows approach), they point out the sustainability issues raised by the increasing allocation of
BAO to anaerobic digestion and the development of crops dedicated to this use. They show
both the individual effects (on the choices made by farmers) and the collective effects on the
agricultural system and the maintenance of a diversity of local agricultural activities. They thus
raise the crucial issue of potential competition over the use of a resource, while considering that
this is not inevitable and that a virtuous and concerted scenario for creating BOA circularities
between the different types of local agricultural actors is desirable in order to build a truly
sustainable territorial bioeconomy.
Last, Halime Güher Tan’s article proposes to analyse the circularities linked to socio-economic
systems, such as food markets, and the effects of these circularities on agricultural and food
resources. To do so, the author compares a market where direct sales prevail and a market with
a wholesaler. Again, circularities are addressed in their material and immaterial dimensions.
Indeed, using an original combination of methods, the author models direct exchanges and
inter-knowledge between producers and consumers. He then proposes to use a specific method
to analyse the development potential of the circular economy through farmers’ markets. To do
Paper accepted in EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
www.sebastienbourdin.com sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
so, he mobilises the ReSOLVE method, which proposes an action plan in six key points for the
transition to the circular economy. The main conclusion of this work is that the direct link
between producers and consumers favours the development of more circular systems and the
valorisation of more local agricultural resources.
Looking at future research questions
The diversity of the articles in this special issue in terms of objectives, analytical frameworks,
methodologies and contributions shows the richness and complexity of the questions on the
links between circularities and territories. The elements that they provide, but also what they
do not address, reveal several avenues for future work on this topic.
Territorial anchorage, resources and sustainability of circularity
Future research could seek to understand, either through new methods or through specific
theoretical approaches, how resources are mobilised and to what extent actors take local
dimensions into account. From this point of view, it would be relevant to better understand how
actors implementing the circular economy seek greater autonomy. They could also seek to
investigate which factors can explain the mobilisation of territorial and extra-territorial
resources. The articles in this issue also show that there is still important work to be done
regarding the new resources that may result from the building of circularities. If it seems
obvious that circular economy produces new or different coordination patterns, the material and
immaterial outputs of these coordinations and their effects on territories at different scales
remain widely unknown.
Circular economy (like bioeconomy) also raises the question of what a resource is and how it
is valued. Research on territorial development and innovation has long shown that a resource
is not a purely material element. Research on circular economy reinforces this statement and
the need to take into account the wide diversity of resources. However, it also raises the question
of how to consider and integrate the different perceptions of a resource and its value that may
coexist in a network or in a territory, and that must be taken into account to build sustainable
circular systems.
The sustainability of the systems may also be questioned, as the extent of the networks of actors
may contribute to the distancing of flows and exchanges, thus reducing their sustainability: this
is what we could call the negative externalities of distance. Forgetting the dynamics of
geographical proximity in circular economy approaches, especially when it comes to recycling
and reuse, would mean ignoring the environmental dimension of the circular economy.
However, this dimension is central to the definition because it is the very thing that thwarts the
linear economy on which a large part of human activity is based. Therefore, the analysis of the
role of geographical proximity in the exchange of flows is promising. In this context, it seems
necessary to develop new methods to delimit the territories of action, allowing the exchange of
flows to be optimised in the smallest possible area.
Circularities, perimeters and scales
Beyond the analysis of the scale of spatial deployment of the circular economy and its territorial
anchoring, it seems important to look at the convergence between relevant territories (scale of
actors) and territories of public policies (institutional perimeter or scale). There is rarely an
overlap between the scales of economic actors and institutional territories. However, the latter
are often promoters and funders of the former. They can play the role of an intermediary actor
Paper accepted in EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
www.sebastienbourdin.com sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
(Bourdin and Nadou, 2020). Future studies are therefore necessary to better understand how
circular economy actors deal with different perimeters and scales.
Circularities, innovation and territories
The case studies in this issue show that the transition from a linear to a circular system relies
on different types of environmental innovations, defined as such because of the environmental
benefits they produce. These environmental benefits are based on technological, but also
organisational, institutional and social innovations. This non-technological dimension of eco-
innovation is often central to circular economy processes and would require further analysis
related to the identification of the brakes and levers to circularity, notably the new modes of
coordination of actors and activities in territories. Inter-organisational relationships are often
central in the implementation of the process of transition towards sustainability, and circular
innovative projects are rich sources of insight into how co-located actors with different but
related activities collaborate towards eco-innovation. This very specific dimension of
circularity, whose first goal is to bring together previously unrelated actors, brings to the
forefront the question of place-based factors (beyond resources) and localised trajectories of
innovation, which would require more in-depth analysis. social innovations.
Circular economy and regional or local policies
In terms of public policies, the challenge identified in the articles is to succeed in designing a
mode of economic transformation around a systemic and integrated approach. This implies the
implementation of public policies taking into account the diversity and the necessary
territorialisation of these activities. From this perspective, the territorial practices of circularity
and circulation of flows should be encouraged, in a logical rebalancing of territories, through
an equitable distribution of circular activities and jobs.
Following the industrial and territorial ecology approach, public policies must participate in the
support and coordination of the actors in the transition. In the public policies of various
countries, industrial and territorial ecology is now understood as a lever for change and
evolution of practices and technical and organisational models, integrating both issues of
coordination of actors and positive externalities on the territory.
In this context, studies on governance are needed. These should focus on structuring productive
and social interactions of new forms of organisation and coordination of actors to generate
circularity. The reproducibility and generalisation of the system of governance studied must be
envisaged from the perspective of taking into account local specificities, differentiating one
territory from another. The success and sustainability of territorial circularity initiatives cannot
be separated from local realities, as each project is specific to its territory and its actors.
Bibliography
Bourdin, S., & Nadou, F. (2020). The role of a local authority as a stakeholder encouraging the
development of biogas: a study on territorial intermediation. Journal of environmental
management, 258, 110009.
Bourdin, S., & Torre, A. (2020). The Circular Economy as a Means of Territorialisation of the
EU Industry. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, (2), 33-40.
Paper accepted in EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
www.sebastienbourdin.com sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
Cerceau, J., Mat, N., & Junqua, G. (2018). Territorial embeddedness of natural resource
management: A perspective through the implementation of industrial ecology. Geoforum, 89,
29-42.
Cesaretti, G. P., Misso, R., & Shakir, H. S. H. (2017) Territorial competition and circular
economy. Rivista di Studi sulla SostenibilitaIssue, 2, 31-42.
Dumoulin, F., & Wassenaar, T. (2014). Environment in industrial ecology, grasping a complex
notion for enhancing industrial synergies at territorial scales. Sustainability, 6(9), 6267-6277.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2015. Towards the Circular Economy. Economic and Business
Rationale for an Accelerated Transition; Ellen Macarthur Foundation: Cowes, UK.
European Commission, 2019. Communication from the commission to the European
parliament, the European council, the council, the European economic and social committee
and the committee of the regions, The European Green Deal. European Commission, Brussels,
p 24.
European Commission, 2020. Communication from the commission to the European
parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the
regions, A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe.
European Commission, Brussels.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner
production, 114, 11-32.
Kern, F., Sharp, H., & Hachmann, S., (2020) Governing the second deep transition towards a
circular economy: How rules emerge, align and diffuse. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, 37, 171-186.
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: the concept and its
limitations. Ecological economics, 143, 37-46.
Lieder, M.; Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive
review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 115, 36–51.
Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: an interdisciplinary
exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of business ethics,
140(3), 369-380.
Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment.
JHU press.
Preston F., 2012. A global redesign? Shaping the circular economy. The Royal Institute of
International Affairs, Chatham House, Briefing paper, London, p. 19.
Salvia, R., Andreopoulou, Z. S., & Quaranta, G. (2018) The circular economy: A broader
perspective for rural areas. Rivista di Studi sulla Sostenibilita, 2018/1, 87-105.
Paper accepted in EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
www.sebastienbourdin.com sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
Sanchez Levoso, A., Gasol C. M., Martinez-Blanco, J., Durany, X. G., Lehmann, M., & Gaya,
R.,F. (2020) Methodological framework for the implementation of circular economy in urban
systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, article number 119227
Torre, A., & Dermine-Brullot, S. (2019). Circular territorial economy-Towards sustainable
territories?. Systèmes alimentaires, 2019(4), 27-47.
